A series of well-timed market bets on falling oil prices totalling as much as $7 billion during March and April spread across multiple exchanges and types of fuel and derivatives just before major Iranian policy announcements by US President Donald Trump, according to traders, market experts and Reuters analysis of exchange data.
The size exceeds previously reported bets amounting to $2.6 billion, which have already prompted the US administration to warn staff against using nonpublic information for financial benefit.
The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is investigating, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters in April, although the CFTC has yet to officially confirm a probe is underway.
Reuters could not establish who placed the bets and whether they originated in the US or elsewhere. They included short positions, or bets that prices would fall, for derivatives including ICE, CME crude, diesel and gasoline futures.
The bets took place on two major exchanges that host benchmark global oil and fuel futures trade: the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) and Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME). Both exchanges declined to comment. The CME is investigating the trades, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters.
The well-timed trades have triggered calls from legal experts and lawmakers for regulators to investigate whether they were based on inside information or leaks.
Traders first spotted unusual trades on March 23. The trades were executed minutes before Trump announced a delay to threatened attacks on Iranian power infrastructure, triggering an oil price fall.
The same pattern repeated on April 7, before Trump announced a ceasefire with Iran that triggered a fall of as much as 15% in benchmark ICE Brent futures.
It happened again on April 17, when Iranian officials and Trump spoke about reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and then again on April 21, when Trump extended the ceasefire.
Reuters and other media reported those trades on the most actively traded front-month contracts for the two global crude benchmarks, Brent and West Texas Intermediate.
The value of those bets on those four days in March and April stood at around $2.6 billion, according to Reuters initial calculations.
The US Justice Department, CFTC and White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
However, a further analysis of trading data across exchanges and contracts showed traders executed similar bets at exactly the same dates and times for European diesel and US gasoline futures as well as longer-dated contracts for Brent and WTI, bringing the total to around $7 billion, based on Reuters calculations.
A sell bet – or short selling – means the person executing the trade borrows the derivative from a counterparty, sells it and later buys it back more cheaply when the price falls, keeping the remaining cash as profit.
On March 23 and on April 7, 17 and 21, oil prices plunged by over 10%. Reuters calculations show that a short seller with $7 billion could have made hundreds of millions of dollars in profits, depending on the timing of the bets.
The trades look “well informed” as they preceded major announcements, said Adi Imsirovic, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and a veteran oil trader. US authorities, such as the CFTC, can access exchange data to trace who placed the trades and investigate if it decides to, he added.
On Thursday, ABC reported the US Department of Justice was investigating $2.6 billion in oil trades related to the Iran war. The DOJ was not immediately available for comment.
The CFTC’s enforcement director said in March the agency was aware of speculation regarding insider trading in CFTC-regulated markets and was “watching”.
Facts Only
Traders placed bets totaling up to $7 billion on falling oil prices during March and April.
The bets were spread across multiple exchanges, including ICE and CME, and involved crude, diesel, and gasoline futures.
The trades occurred just before major Iranian policy announcements by U.S. President Donald Trump.
Initial reports identified $2.6 billion in bets, which prompted U.S. administration warnings against using nonpublic information.
The CFTC is investigating the trades, though no official probe has been confirmed.
The trades included short positions on ICE Brent, CME crude, diesel, and gasoline futures.
Unusual trading activity was first noticed on March 23, minutes before Trump delayed threatened attacks on Iranian infrastructure.
Similar patterns occurred on April 7 (ceasefire announcement), April 17 (Strait of Hormuz discussions), and April 21 (ceasefire extension).
The total value of the bets across all contracts and exchanges reached approximately $7 billion.
Oil prices fell by over 10% on each of the four key dates.
The U.S. Justice Department, CFTC, and White House have not publicly commented on the investigations.
Short selling involves borrowing derivatives, selling them, and repurchasing them at lower prices for profit.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The narrative presents a compelling case of suspicious market activity, with well-timed trades preceding geopolitical announcements that moved oil prices. The strongest version of this story—supported by the data—is that someone with advance knowledge of U.S. policy shifts on Iran exploited that information for massive financial gain. The pattern of trades across multiple contracts and exchanges suggests coordination rather than coincidence, and the scale ($7 billion) implies institutional or highly connected actors. However, the article stops short of proving insider trading, as no direct evidence links the trades to leaked information.
Patterns detected: ARC-0024 Ambiguity (lack of confirmed sources for the trades), ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey (implied wrongdoing without definitive proof).
The root cause appears to be the intersection of geopolitical volatility and financial markets, where information asymmetry can be weaponized. The implications are significant: if insider trading occurred, it erodes trust in market fairness and could signal deeper corruption in policy-maker circles. Conversely, if the trades were legitimate, they highlight how quickly markets react to perceived risks, raising questions about transparency in government communications.
Bridge questions: What mechanisms exist to prevent policy leaks from being monetized? How would regulators distinguish between informed speculation and illegal insider trading in such cases? What safeguards could prevent similar incidents in the future?
Counterstrike scan: A coordinated influence campaign would likely amplify the narrative to undermine trust in financial regulators or the U.S. government. The article, however, presents the facts without overt sensationalism, focusing on verifiable data and expert commentary. No clear alignment with a manipulative playbook is detected.
Sentinel — Human
This text exhibits the structure and tone of professional financial reporting, strongly suggesting human authorship grounded in traceable institutional sources.