Debtors of the bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange FTX have launched legal action against the parents of FTX founder Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried, alleging that they misappropriated millions of dollars through their involvement in the exchange’s business.
The counsel for FTX debtors and debtors-in-possession, represented by the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, filed a lawsuit against SBF’s parents, Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried, on Sept. 18.
The plaintiffs argued that Bankman and Fried exploited their access and influence within the FTX empire to enrich themselves at the expense of the debtors in the FTX bankruptcy estate. The debtors alleged that SBF’s parents were “very much involved” in the FTX business from inception to collapse, contrary to what SBF has claimed.
“As early as 2018, Bankman described Alameda as a ‘family business’ — a phrase he repeatedly used to refer to the FTX Group. Even as the FTX Group descended into insolvency, Bankman and Fried profited handsomely from this ‘family business,’” the complaint reads.
According to the plaintiffs, SBF’s father, a Stanford Law School professor, had broad authority to make decisions for FTX Group as its “de facto officer.” Bankman also held executive positions on FTX Group’s management team, the debtors argued.
SBF’s mother, also a Stanford Law School professor, was actively involved in FTX’s political donations, the plaintiffs wrote. According to the allegations, Fried served as the “single most influential advisor” in FTX Group’s political contributions, repeatedly calling upon FTX to donate millions directly to Mind the Gap (MTG), a political action committee that she co-founded.
Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried. Source: The New York Post
According to the complaint, Bankman and Fried extracted significant unearned rewards from their involvement in FTX Group, including a $10-million cash gift and a $16.4-million luxury property in the Bahamas. Bankman also siphoned off FTX Group’s money to cover costs, including privately chartered jets and $1,200-per-night hotel stays, the plaintiffs alleged.
By draining FTX Group’s funds to their benefit, Bankman and Fried either knew or ignored red flags revealing that their son was orchestrating a fraudulent scheme to promote their personal and charitable interests at the debtors’ cost, the plaintiffs said. The debtors called on the court to hold Bankman and Fried accountable for their misconduct and recover assets for the debtors’ creditors, stating:
“Award plaintiffs punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial resulting from defendants’ conscious, willful, wanton, and malicious conduct, which exhibits a reckless disregard for the interests of plaintiffs and their creditors.”
As previously reported, Bankman and Fried began facing professional issues at Stanford Law School soon after FTX collapsed. In late 2022, SBF’s parents also reportedly told friends that their son’s legal bills would likely wipe them out financially.
Once a major cryptocurrency exchange, FTX stopped operating and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in mid-November 2022. FTX founder and former CEO SBF was subsequently arrested and charged with 13 counts, including fraud, money laundering and bribing officials. SBF’s first of two trials is scheduled to start on Oct. 3, where he will face seven charges related to fraudulent activities involving user funds at FTX and Alameda Research.
A hostile environment era deportation policy for criminals is being expanded by the Labour government as it continues its migration crackdown.
The government wants to go further in extraditing foreign offenders before they have a chance to appeal by including more countries in the existing scheme.
Offenders that have a human right appeal rejected will get offshored, and further appeals will then get heard from abroad.
It follows the government announcing on Saturday that it wants to deport criminals as soon as they are sentenced.
The “deport now, appeal later” policy was first introduced when Baroness Theresa May was home secretary in 2014 as part of the Conservative government’s hostile environment policy to try and reduce migration.
It saw hundreds of people returned to a handful of countries like Kenya and Jamaica under Section 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, added in via amendment.
In 2017, a Supreme Court effectively stopped the policy from being used after it was challenged on the grounds that appealing from abroad was not compliant with human rights.
More on Theresa May
Related Topics:
However, in 2023, then home secretary Suella Braverman announced she was restarting the policy after providing more facilities abroad for people to lodge their appeals.
Now, the current government says it is expanding the partnership from eight countries to 23.
Previously, offenders were being returned to Finland, Nigeria, Estonia, Albania, Belize, Mauritius, Tanzania and Kosovo for remote hearings.
Angola, Australia, Botswana, Brunei, Bulgaria, Canada, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Malaysia, Uganda and Zambia are the countries being added – with the government wanting to include more.
Image: Theresa May’s hostile environment policy proved controversial. Pic: PA
The Home Office claims this is the “the government’s latest tool in its comprehensive approach to scaling up our ability to remove foreign criminals”, touting 5,200 removals of foreign offenders since July 2024 – an increase of 14% compared with the year before.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: “Those who commit crimes in our country cannot be allowed to manipulate the system, which is why we are restoring control and sending a clear message that our laws must be respected and will be enforced.”
Foreign Secretary David Lammy said: “We are leading diplomatic efforts to increase the number of countries where foreign criminals can be swiftly returned, and if they want to appeal, they can do so safely from their home country.
“Under this scheme, we’re investing in international partnerships that uphold our security and make our streets safer.”
Both ministers opposed the hostile environment policy when in opposition.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
In 2015, Sir Keir Starmer had questioned whether such a policy was workable – saying in-person appeals were the norm for 200 years and had been a “highly effective way of resolving differences”.
He also raised concerns about the impact on children if parents were deported and then returned after a successful appeal.
In today’s announcement, the prime minister’s administration said it wanted to prevent people from “gaming the system” and clamp down on people staying in the UK for “months or years” while appeals are heard.
TRM Labs says the Embargo ransomware group has moved over $34 million in ransom-linked crypto since April, targeting US hospitals and critical infrastructure.