Bankman-Fried Wraps Testimony in FTX Criminal Fraud Trial

Published 7 months ago

Crypto exchange founder Sam Bankman-Fried concluded his testimony in his criminal fraud trial, marking the end of the evidential phase of the case. The trial, which has seen the former billionaire on the stand for four days, is set to move into closing arguments.

A Defense Under Fire

The defense for Bankman-Fried, the ex-CEO of crypto exchange FTX, has asserted that any wrongdoing was due to honest errors made in his capacity as a startup founder. However, this position took a significant hit in Tuesday’s proceedings. Prosecution alleges that Bankman-Fried used FTX as a personal piggy bank, taking customer funds for personal enrichment, purchasing luxury property in the Bahamas, and funding US political campaigns.

Questionable Business Practices

Bankman-Fried admitted knowledge of FTX customer funds being held in a bank account controlled by Alameda Research, a sister company to FTX. He claimed to have no memory of instructing Alameda employees to protect these funds. In contrast, the prosecution argues that Bankman-Fried misrepresented crucial aspects of his business to investors, customers, and Congress. The crypto exchange founder has pleaded not guilty to seven counts of fraud and conspiracy.

Connections with High-Profile Figures

US Assistant Attorney Danielle Sassoon highlighted Bankman-Fried’s relationship with Bahamian government members. He testified to attending a dinner with the island nation’s prime minister, Bill Clinton, and Tony Blair. This connection came under scrutiny when, amidst a liquidity crunch that saw FTX freeze customer withdrawals, Bankman-Fried offered to open withdrawals for Bahamian customers exclusively.

Oversight Lapses

Bankman-Fried’s lead attorney, Mark Cohen, allowed him to clarify the relationship between FTX and Alameda. Bankman-Fried stated that after stepping down as Alameda’s CEO, he was largely uninvolved with the firm’s core operations, despite being a majority owner. He admitted in retrospect that the oversight between the two firms was poor and conceded that the companies would have had better systems in place if they had never overlapped.

Related news