Prosecutors in Andrew Left’s securities fraud trial told a federal court that the Citron Research founder was paid by hedge funds for trading recommendations, coordinated with other funds for report content, and shared in profits—while allegedly concealing tho
For weeks, Andrew Left built his public persona on what looked like independent short-selling. In court, prosecutors tried to show that independence had partners—and payday timing that didn’t match the image.
Prosecutors in Andrew Left’s securities fraud trial say the prominent short-seller wasn’t always working alone in the tweet-and-trade routine he’s accused of. They argue that Left was working with hedge funds and sharing in some of their trading profits. while hiding those relationships to “maintain the illusion of Citron’s independence.”.
On Tuesday in Los Angeles federal court. Eliza Goldberg. a chief compliance officer at Atom. a Texas-based hedge fund. testified that Left was paid more than $2.6 million by the fund for providing trading recommendations. Prosecutors said Left concealed that work from retail investors. They also said some of the payments were made weeks before Left published a report criticizing another activist short seller’s work with a hedge fund.
The courtroom battle sharpened further when prosecutors turned to a dispute that played out publicly between two short-sellers.
In August 2019, Harry Markopolos—known for exposing the Bernie Madoff scandal—issued a short report on General Electric accusing the company of fraud “bigger than Enron.” Left responded with a rebuttal tweet and report that questioned Markopolos’ credibility.
In the report, Left wrote: “As noted in the disclaimer on his site, Harry is being paid a % of profits from an unnamed hedge fund that is short GE.” He added, “No credible hedge fund or short seller would ever do this.”
Prosecutors’ case hinges on what they say Left did next and what he said about his own arrangements. Left’s report also said that Citron had never been paid to publish research. and that “compensation tied to the ‘success of a trade’ would not pass internal compliance nor would it pass compliance of any fund that Citron would collaborate with on ideas.”.
Left’s defense. prosecutors say. argued that his claims about Markopolos weren’t a one-to-one comparison with Left’s own situation. The defense said there was no rule or law preventing Left from working with a hedge fund. It also pointed to agreements with Atom that prosecutors said included a confidentiality clause that would have prevented Left from publicly disclosing he was working with the fund.
But prosecutors weren’t focused only on Atom. They have also accused Left of coordinating with at least one hedge fund, Anson Funds, to draft Citron reports and tweets—while Anson allegedly made trades tied to those reports and shared a portion of profits with Left.
Text messages shown in court included exchanges between Left and a portfolio manager at Anson. In one message, Left wrote, “the best shorts are retail shorts no doubt.” In another, prosecutors said Left referenced a cannabis stock when he wrote, “we can DESTROY CRON.”
That reference, prosecutors said, mattered after a report on Cronos was released. Left later wrote in a text message to the portfolio manager that once he realized who owned the stock. it was like taking “candy from a baby.” Prosecutors said Anson paid Left more than $1.1 million from trades on two other cannabis stocks: Namaste Technologies and India Globalization Capital. They said the money was routed through a third party that Left invoiced for “consulting services.”.
Left’s defense again pushed back on how the texts should be interpreted. It said Left may have consulted industry experts. including Anson. which was in the cannabis space. but that the reports put out by Citron were his honest views. The defense also said Anson, based in Canada, had better access to the stocks Left was interested in trading.
As for the “candy from a baby” line, the defense argued it referred not to retail investors broadly, but to the “hundreds” of people who sent him vile emails after he published the short report.
Even as the court heard the competing stories, the trial’s central dispute remained sharp: whether Left’s public independence matched the relationships and payments prosecutors say were embedded in his trading recommendations, report writing, and profit sharing.
Prosecutors’ narrative connects the money to the messaging—the timing of payments from Atom ahead of criticism of another activist short seller. the public attack on Markopolos tied to a hedge-fund profit arrangement while Left’s own compensation and coordination were disputed in court. and the cannabis-stock texts that prosecutors say tracked report releases and trading outcomes. The defense. in turn. frames those ties as legal collaboration and private confidentiality—insisting that Citron’s published work reflected Left’s own views. even if other parties helped inform where the bets could be placed.
Andrew Left Citron Research securities fraud trial hedge funds Atom Anson Funds trading recommendations Eliza Goldberg Harry Markopolos General Electric Cronos Namaste Technologies India Globalization Capital retail investors
So he was “independent” but got paid… that seems shady.
Wait I thought Citron was just some dude exposing scams. But now they’re saying he was working with hedge funds and hiding it. Kinda makes sense why his tweets move the market though…
Harry Markopolos sounds like the good guy and then Left comes out with the tweet like “no credible fund would do this”… but if Left was also getting paid then he just exposed himself? Either way SEC should go after all of them, not just one.
This article is confusing like why is this about timing with a report? If he got paid $2.6 million that’s probably just normal investor stuff, right? Also they keep saying “shared in profits” like he was a partner, but how would anyone even prove what he discussed in private tweets? seems like a lot of assumptions.