(JUBA) – Rob Granieri, co-founder of the US based trading firm Jane Street, has been named in a controversial $7 million arms financing case tied to an alleged coup plot in South Sudan. The development comes following growing international scrutiny of Granieri, who is also facing regulatory action in India for market manipulation.
Court documents in the United States reveal that Granieri allegedly transferred $7 million (SSP 32.2 billion) in two payments to Harvard fellow Peter Ajak and activist Abraham Keech, who were charged in June 2025 for conspiring to export weapons to South Sudan illegally. Prosecutors say the money was used to acquire AK-47s, Stinger missiles and grenades as part of a plot to overthrow the South Sudanese government. The transfers reportedly began in February 2024, after a meeting between Granieri and Ajak in Manhattan.
Granieri’s legal team maintains he believed the funds were meant for humanitarian work in South Sudan. However, prosecutors say the financial support was key to enabling the alleged coup operation. The link between Granieri and Ajak was facilitated through former world chess champion Garry Kasparov, a known human rights campaigner. Kasparov denies any knowledge of the plan. Russia has since added Kasparov to its national list of “terrorists and extremists,” citing alleged ties to the CIA.
Granieri, now 53, co-founded Jane Street in 2000 and remains a powerful figure in global finance. The firm, once known for its quiet dominance in algorithmic trading, controlled a trading capital of $21.3 billion by 2023. Granieri’s personal ventures include funding for the Scarlet Pearl casino in Mississippi and political donations to figures such as former US presidential hopeful Nikki Haley. His network has included major US conservative donors and international human rights groups.
Despite the serious nature of the allegations, Granieri has not been formally charged in the coup case. The absence of US sanctions or public investigations into his role has raised questions about whether elements of the US government may have been aware of the operation. Defence attorneys for the accused have hinted at a “public authority defence,” suggesting possible official involvement or prior knowledge by American agencies.
The case has also drawn renewed attention to Jane Street’s operations in India, where regulators allege the firm manipulated the financial markets to make illegal profits worth ₹36,500 crore ($4.87 billion). India’s Securities and Exchange Board (SEBI) banned Jane Street from trading in the country on July 3, 2025, following a probe into “intraday index manipulation” and “marking the close” tactics between 2023 and 2025. Authorities have impounded ₹4,843 crore ($647 million), but most of the alleged profits remain unrecovered.
| Key Figures | USD Equivalent | SSP Equivalent (at 1 USD = SSP 4,600) |
|---|---|---|
| Coup Plot Funding | $7 million | SSP 32.2 billion |
| Jane Street India Profits | $4.87 billion | SSP 22.4 trillion |
| Funds Impounded by SEBI | $647 million | SSP 2.98 trillion |
The timing of the coup case’s exposure, just days before Jane Street’s India ban, has led some to speculate about a broader intelligence or geopolitical strategy at play. Granieri’s links to organisations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has faced accusations of operating as a CIA front, have added fuel to these theories.
The alleged plot’s exposure has sparked concern in South Sudan, a country still grappling with the aftermath of civil conflict and repeated attempts to destabilise its fragile institutions. The South Sudanese government has not issued a formal statement on the matter.
Jane Street’s market dominance, paired with its complex offshore structures in tax havens such as Mauritius, mirrors tactics previously associated with covert financial operations.
For India, the situation exposed weaknesses in regulatory oversight. Retail investors in India bore heavy losses during the alleged manipulation period, leading to public outcry and parliamentary calls for deeper investigation into Jane Street’s global dealings.
Granieri’s defence hinges on his claim of being misled. However, the combined weight of financial irregularities, intelligence speculation and political connections has placed both Jane Street and Granieri under an international microscope.
