Citadel Securities Says It Doesn't Know Source of Leaked China Regulatory Crackdown Information
Alina Collins
Citadel Securities joined Susquehanna's insider-trading lawsuit, claiming $28 million in losses from the same options trades — but says it has no idea who leaked the information, leaving the case's central question unresolved.
What is this lawsuit actually about?
Before China's regulatory crackdown on Futu Holdings and Up Fintech went public, someone placed precise options bets that netted an estimated $100 million-plus in profits.
Susquehanna International Group (盛桥国际) sued 100 "John Doe" defendants, admitting it does not yet know who made the trades but claiming "strong evidence" of insider information.
This means → this is not an ordinary trading dispute — it is a cross-border insider-trading case, and the traders remain unidentified.
Why did Citadel Securities join?
Citadel Securities filed papers in New York court earlier this month, calling itself a victim of the same scheme and claiming $28 million in losses.
The firm said its goal is to hold accountable "any individuals who engaged in wrongdoing."
In plain terms = Citadel's position is: we got hurt too, we want in on the case — but we do not know who did it.
Where did the leak come from?
Susquehanna's court filings suggest two possible sources: inside China's regulatory agencies, or employees at the two targeted brokerages — Futu Holdings and Up Fintech Holding (老虎证券).
Citadel Securities explicitly distanced itself from those claims, stating it "is not aware of the source of any leaked information, nor the basis for assertions made by others."
This reflects a significant gap: the two plaintiffs stand on the same side, yet diverge sharply on the most critical factual question — where the leak originated.
Why don't the numbers match?
Susquehanna estimates its own losses at over $70 million and the traders' profits at more than $100 million.
Citadel Securities argues the profit figure is closer to $137 million; its own losses stand at $28 million.
This means → two co-plaintiffs disagree on the scale of the very trades they are suing over — the final figure will need to be resolved through discovery and litigation.
What happens next?
The court has approved freezing accounts at Futu, Up Fintech's TradeUp Securities, and Interactive Brokers (盈透证券).
Susquehanna has been authorized to subpoena those brokerages for the identities of the account holders.
In plain terms = the money is frozen first, then subpoenas work backward through the accounts to unmask who is behind them — that is the make-or-break step for the entire case.
Content is for reference only, not financial advice.