INVESTIGATION: Suspicious Oil Trades Ahead of Trump’s Announcement on Iran — The Insider Trading Lead

A law that Wall Street fears

And this is where the story takes a turn that few media outlets have picked up on. Federal courts—the SEC and CFTC—require proof of fraudulent intent. This is a considerable burden of proof. Defense attorneys know this, and so do traders. But the State of New York has a legal tool of formidable power: the Martin Act.

Enacted in 1921, the Martin Act allows the New York Attorney General to prosecute fraud in the financial markets without having to prove intent. You read that right. There’s no need to show that the trader knew it was illegal. It’s enough to prove that the transaction was based on nonpublic information and that it generated an unfair advantage. This is the law that allowed Eliot Spitzer to bring Wall Street to its knees in the early 2000s. It’s the law that Letitia James used against the Trump Organization.

Why the Martin Act Changes Everything

The difference between a federal investigation and a prosecution under the Martin Act is simple: time. An SEC investigation takes years. The Martin Act can bring charges within a few months. And most importantly, it does not require the cooperation of the U.S. Department of Justice—a detail that is far from insignificant when the President of the United States is potentially involved in the information chain.

According to sources close to the case cited by several U.S. financial media outlets, the New York Attorney General has already requested transaction records from the major clearinghouses. The data is currently being analyzed. The CME Group, which operates the NYMEX where WTI contracts are traded, has confirmed that it is “fully cooperating with the relevant regulatory authorities”—a diplomatic phrasing that, in Wall Street parlance, means someone is in the crosshairs.

The Inner Circle

The central question is not technical. It is political. Who, among Donald Trump’s inner circle, knew the content and timing of the announcement on Iran before it was made public? The answer, according to standard White House procedures, is a small but significant circle: the National Security Council; the Secretary of State; The Secretary of Defense. The Director of the CIA. And, in the case of economic sanctions, the Secretary of the Treasury and his top advisors.

This is a circle of no more than twenty people. But each of these individuals has staff members, legal advisors, and assistants who prepare the documents. And each of these assistants has a phone.

The Problem of “Friends of Friends”

Insider trading almost never works in a straightforward manner. It’s not the national security advisor who calls his broker to place a $50 million order for oil options. It’s more subtle. It’s a dinner. It’s a seemingly innocuous remark. “If I were you, I’d keep an eye on oil this week.” Six words. No classified documents exchanged. No written evidence. But six words that, in the right context, are worth a fortune.

And yet, the traces still exist. The timestamps on the orders. The IP addresses of connections to trading platforms. Phone metadata. Clearinghouse records. Post-2008 financial surveillance technology is designed for exactly this type of scenario. The question isn’t whether the evidence exists. The question is whether anyone will have the courage to look for it.

When Geopolitics Fuels Speculation

$111.60 per barrel of WTI. That is the price at the time of this writing. Three months ago, it was $68. The rise is staggering—and it’s not over yet. The Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 21% of the world’s oil passes, has become a war zone. Qatari tankers are grounded. Marine insurance premiums have skyrocketed. Saudi Arabia is setting record premiums on its flagship crude, Arab Light.

In this context, betting on rising oil prices isn’t an act of financial genius. It’s an act of having access to information. Anyone who knew that Trump was going to tighten sanctions against Iran—adding further pressure to an already overheated market—had the financial equivalent of a treasure map. The estimated profit on positions identified on June 14? According to calculations by analysts at Kpler and Vortexa, between $800 million and $1.2 billion.

The precedent of the oil “Big Short”

There is a historical parallel that the markets have not forgotten. In 2008, massive positions in oil derivatives were detected just before prices collapsed. At the time, a U.S. Senate investigation, chaired by Carl Levin, revealed that investment banks had bet against their own clients. Goldman Sachs was at the center of the scandal. The result: a $550 million fine—a paltry sum compared to the profits made.

The lesson from 2008 is crystal clear: the punishment has never been proportional to the crime. And that is precisely what makes the bets placed on June 14 so dangerous. If the traders behind these positions knew that the likelihood of prosecution was low and that any fines would be manageable, then the calculation was simple. The risk was worth taking. It is still worth taking.

The President Who Tweets the Markets

Donald Trump is no ordinary president when it comes to the oil markets. Since his first term, he has systematically used his public communications to influence crude oil prices. A tweet about OPEC. A threat against Iran. An announcement of sanctions. Every statement is a market event. And every market event is an opportunity for anyone who knows the schedule.

The problem is structural. A president who governs by constantly springing surprises creates a permanent information asymmetry between those in the inner circle and those who are not. This isn’t a conspiracy. It’s the mechanics of power. When the same man decides on Iran policy, announces that policy on Truth Social, and maintains close ties with billionaires in the energy sector, the conditions for insider trading aren’t just a possibility. They’re a statistical certainty.

The Shadow of Mar-a-Lago

Fundraising dinners at Mar-a-Lago have become a symbol of this blurred line between political power and financial interests. Donors paying $250,000 per person to dine with the president. “Informal” conversations about strategic directions. Selfies with documents on the table. This isn’t fiction: it’s public knowledge, documented by photographers and the guests themselves on social media.

The issue raised by the June 14 oil betting scandal is therefore broader than insider trading. It touches on the very nature of governance. When the line between classified information and casual conversation blurs, when the circle of insiders merges with the circle of donors, the market ceases to be a pricing mechanism. It becomes a mechanism for redistributing wealth to the privileged.

A Regulator Stripped of Its Substance

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is the federal agency tasked with overseeing commodity markets. On paper, it has the tools, mandates, and expertise needed to detect and prosecute insider trading in the oil markets. In reality, it is brain-dead.

Since January 2025, the Trump administration has cut the CFTC’s budget by 18%, eliminated market analyst positions, and appointed a former oil industry lobbyist to lead the agency. The regulator tasked with monitoring suspicious oil trades is led by a man whose former clients are precisely those who stand to gain the most from these trades. It’s like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse—except that the fox also has the keys to the barn.

The Enron Precedent

Those who think “regulatory capture” is an exaggeration should remember Enron. In 2001, the Texas energy giant manipulated California’s electricity markets with the passive—and sometimes active—complicity of regulators. FERC knew. The CFTC had clues. No one took action until the whole structure collapsed. Thousands of employees lost their retirement savings. Millions of Californians paid artificially inflated bills.

The parallel with 2025 is troubling. An overheated energy market. Complacent regulators. Massive speculative positions. And at the center, political actors whose personal financial interests are inextricably linked to their foreign policy decisions. History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

The Gas Station Owner from Ohio

While anonymous traders were cashing in on their oil options, Mike Braddock, a gas station owner in Youngstown, Ohio, watched prices at the pump climb past $5.40 a gallon. “My customers look at me as if it’s my fault,” he told the Youngstown Vindicator. “People who make $15 an hour and have to choose between filling up their tanks and buying food. That’s the real story behind oil.”

Mike knows nothing about options contracts. He doesn’t know about the Martin Act. He’s never heard of the CFTC. But every day, he pays the price for decisions made in offices he’ll never have access to. When the price of a barrel of oil jumps from $68 to $111 in three months, it’s not just a macroeconomic statistic. It’s a family of four’s food budget being cut by $200 a month.

The Independent Truck Driver

Two thousand kilometers away, Sandra Reeves, an independent truck driver in Texas, does her math on the hood of her Peterbilt. Six months ago, a full tank cost her $400. Today, it costs $680. “I work just to pay for my diesel,” she says. No union. No media coverage. No lobby in Washington. Just a woman, a truck, and an equation that no longer adds up.

CNBC Looks the Other Way

The most striking thing about this case isn’t what was said. It’s what wasn’t said. When the trading anomalies on June 14 were first documented—by the specialized blog ZeroHedge and by independent analysts on X (formerly Twitter)—the major U.S. financial media outlets chose to… do nothing.

CNBC did not devote a single segment to the anomaly during the first five days. Bloomberg published a brief technical article without mentioning the possibility of insider trading. The Wall Street Journal waited until the New York Attorney General confirmed the opening of an investigation before publishing its first article. Investigative journalism on financial markets died the day newsrooms became dependent on advertising from the very institutions they are supposed to monitor.

OilPrice.com — The Wake-Up Call

In the end, it was OilPrice.com, a website specializing in energy, that was the first to piece together the puzzle in a detailed article. The headline was understated. The facts, devastating. Trades timed with suspicious precision. Volumes that cannot be explained by any standard market model. And above all, a temporal coincidence with the presidential announcement that defies the laws of probability.

And yet, the term “insider trading” remains absent from the headlines of television networks. As if naming the crime were more dangerous than the crime itself.

The Failure of the 2018 Investigation

In May 2018, when Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA (the Iran nuclear deal), similar market movements had been observed. The SEC had opened a preliminary investigation. Eighteen months later, the case was closed. The official reason: insufficient evidence. The real reason, according to former investigators cited by ProPublica: political pressure.

A former official in the SEC’s enforcement division, speaking on condition of anonymity, stated: “When the trail leads to the White House, people stop asking questions. It’s not corruption. It’s institutional survival.” ” The 2018 investigation did not fail because of a lack of evidence. It failed because no one wanted to know what the evidence would reveal.

2025—the difference is New York

What changes in 2025 is the legal geography. The NYMEX, where WTI contracts are traded, is located in New York. This means that the state attorney general has automatic jurisdiction under the Martin Act. She does not need authorization from the federal Department of Justice. She does not need the SEC. She does not need the CFTC. She can act alone. And unlike federal regulators, she is not appointed by the president.

Letitia James has already demonstrated that she does not shy away from politically sensitive cases. The Trump Organization case in 2023—which resulted in $354 million in penalties—showed that the Martin Act can reach even the most powerful. The question is whether the oil betting case will be handled with the same determination.

How It Works — in Three Steps

The mechanism is terrifyingly simple. Step one: obtain the information. No need for classified documents. A simple tip—“the president is going to make an announcement about Iran this week”—is enough. Step two: place orders through offshore structures, preferably in jurisdictions that don’t automatically cooperate with U.S. regulators. The Cayman Islands. Jersey. Dubai. Step three: wait for the market to react, then cash in.

The whole process takes less than 72 hours. The profit is immediate. The trail, if properly covered up, can take years to trace. And even if it is traced, the penalty is usually a fine that amounts to a fraction of the profit. It’s a crime with a risk-adjusted return higher than that of any legitimate investment.

Why Oil Is the Ideal Vehicle

Insider trading in stocks is closely monitored. Every member of Congress is required to report their stock transactions. Purchases of options on individual companies trigger automatic alerts. But what about commodities? It’s the regulatory Wild West. Oil futures contracts are not subject to the same reporting requirements. The alert thresholds are higher. And above all, the natural volatility of the oil market provides perfect cover.

When WTI fluctuates by 3 to 5% per day—which has been the case since the start of the Hormuz crisis—an anomaly in trading volume can easily be attributed to “market jitters.” It takes a trained eye, granular data, and political will to distinguish legitimate speculation from outright wrongdoing. These three conditions are rarely met simultaneously.

One Strait, 21% of the World’s Oil

The timing of the suspicious bets on June 14 cannot be understood without considering the geopolitical context. The Strait of Hormuz is in crisis. U.S. military operations against Iran have turned this 34-kilometer-wide waterway into an active war zone. Nearly 50 Qatari LNG tankers are stranded in Asia. Iraqi exports are disrupted. The United Arab Emirates’ largest gas plant has been forced to shut down for the second time.

Against this backdrop, the announcement of tougher sanctions against Iran is not merely a political adjustment. It is a catalyst for the crisis. It’s like pouring gasoline on a fire. And anyone who knew about this announcement in advance knew that prices would skyrocket. Not maybe. Definitely.

Oil at 120, 130, 150?

Premiums on U.S. domestic WTI have reached record levels. Louisiana Light is trading at over $120. Goldman Sachs analysts have raised their forecast to $130 for the third quarter. JP Morgan is suggesting a $150 scenario if the Strait of Hormuz remains partially blocked beyond the summer.

Every additional dollar per barrel represents a transfer of wealth: from consumers to producers, from workers to speculators, and from democracies to oil-rich states. And in the midst of this transfer, those in the know—those who placed their bets on June 14—are reaping the rewards of information that 340 million Americans did not have.

Legal Scenarios

Let’s be clear about what’s realistic. Scenario 1: The New York Attorney General files charges under the Martin Act. The offshore accounts are identified. The beneficial owners are named. Convictions are handed down. Probability: 15%.

Scenario 2: The investigation progresses, identifies secondary intermediaries, and results in negotiated fines and out-of-court settlements without an admission of guilt. The true beneficiaries remain in the shadows. Probability: 50%.

Scenario 3: The investigation gets bogged down in jurisdictional quagmires; offshore entities refuse to cooperate; federal regulators block access to data; and the case is closed after two years of proceedings. Probability: 35%.

The most likely scenario is one in which justice is not served. Not because of a lack of evidence, but because the system is designed to protect those it should be prosecuting.

The Question of Presidential Immunity

And then there’s the elephant in the room. If—and this is a capital “if”—the trail leads back to the president’s immediate inner circle, the question of presidential immunity will inevitably arise. The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States significantly expanded the president’s protection against prosecution for acts performed in the course of his official duties. Announcing sanctions against Iran is an official act. But tipping off a billionaire friend before the announcement is not.

It’s a fine line. And in the America of 2025, it’s intentionally blurred.

This is not a glitch

Here’s the truth that no one wants to hear. The suspicious bets placed on June 14 are not a system anomaly. They are the system. A system where political information is a commodity. Where access to power is monetized into market positions. Where regulators are appointed by those they are supposed to oversee. Where sanctions are designed by those who profit from them.

This isn’t a bug. It’s a feature.

The word “corruption” is too weak to describe this mechanism. Corruption implies a deviation from a norm. Here, there is no longer any norm. There are winners and losers, and the only variable that determines which category you fall into is your proximity to power.

And yet, people are fighting

It would be easy to succumb to cynicism. But deep within the system, there are people who haven’t given up. CFTC analysts who share data despite orders from their superiors. Whistleblowers who risk their careers to report irregularities. State attorneys general who use century-old laws to circumvent federal obstruction. Investigative journalists who ask the questions the mainstream media refuses to ask.

They are the true guardians. Not the institutions. The individuals who choose to do their jobs despite the system.

The Coming Weeks

There are three developments to watch. First: the CFTC’s official response. If it announces a “preliminary review” rather than a “formal investigation,” that’s a sign it’s trying to sweep the matter under the rug. Second: the subpoenas from the New York Attorney General. If she targets clearinghouses AND prime brokers, it means she’s working her way up the chain. Third: the White House’s reaction. If Trump calls the investigation a “witch hunt”—his favorite expression—it’s, paradoxically, a sign that they’re on the right track.

Look at what they’re going after. That’s where the evidence lies.

The Test of Democracy

Beyond the legal and financial aspects, this case is a test of democratic resilience. Not in the grandiloquent sense of the term, but in a very concrete sense. Is it still possible, in 2025, to hold the powerful accountable for their actions when those actions are committed at the intersection of political and financial power?

The answer will determine far more than the fate of a few anonymous traders. It will determine whether the U.S. financial markets retain a modicum of credibility. Whether the dollar remains the world’s reserve currency. Whether foreign investors continue to trust Wall Street. Insider trading is not a victimless crime. It is a crime against trust. And trust, once destroyed, cannot be rebuilt by decree.

One final calculation

Let’s get back to the numbers. An estimated $800 million to $1.2 billion in profits from the suspicious trades on June 14. That’s how much someone made by knowing what you didn’t know. Put that number into perspective. It’s three times the CFTC’s annual budget. It’s enough to fund 12,000 full college scholarships. It’s the annual income of 24,000 median American families.

And it is this amount that will determine whether the system reforms itself or reinforces its worst flaws. Because if a billion dollars in illicit profits isn’t enough to trigger prosecution, then no amount ever will be.

Memory as Resistance

June 14, 2025. Remember this date. Not because it will change anything in the immediate future. But because it’s the date the system revealed itself for what it is—naked, brutal, indifferent. Someone knew. Someone took a gamble. Someone won. And 340 million Americans continue to pay top dollar at the pump, unaware that the game was rigged before it even began.

The next time you fill up your tank, think about June 14. Think about the orders placed 48 hours before the announcement. Think about the offshore structures. Think about the Martin Act. And ask yourself who, exactly, is protecting you.

Signed, Jacques PJ Provost