The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion in court on Oct. 4, claiming the lack of crypto regulations in the U.S. is no bar to the criminal charges made against former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF).
The DOJ’s letter was filed in response to the defendant’s request for clarification and reconsideration of charges related to the misappropriation of funds in FTX. Lawyers for SBF argued that their client was “not guilty because FTX was not regulated in the United States, and he followed the rules concerning FTX US.”
The DOJ called this argument irrelevant, claiming that even though the existence of legislation may be necessary to prove a legal obligation, the lack of it does not affect whether the defendant’s victims committed money to him. The DOJ noted that the defendant’s claim about a lack of regulations related to customer funds usage is false as there are existing rules against it.
The DOJ further argued that the existing laws prohibit companies from stealing customer assets, and the defendant has been charged under the same. Furthermore, the defendant committed substantial misrepresentations to customers, as well as having stolen money from them.
The DOJ argued that it is irrelevant to whether the defendant made substantial misstatements or omissions in the supposed “absence of clearly applicable laws or regulations.“ It cannot be proven that the wire fraud allegations are “actus reus,” meaning guilty act, regardless of whether there is regulation or not.
SBF is currently facing multiple charges of wire fraud and misappropriation of customer funds, among others. The former FTX CEO is currently in jail for violating his bail conditions and trying to influence potential witnesses. However, he has appealed — to no avail — several times to be released on bail before the trial commences. SBF’s legal team cited a lack of internet connectivity hindering his defense preparations, as well as no vegan meal options.
And tens of billions of pounds of borrowing depends on the answer – which still feels intriguingly opaque.
You might think you know what the fiscal rules are. And you might think you know they’re not negotiable.
For instance, the main fiscal rule says that from 2029-30, the government’s day-to-day spending needs to be in surplus – i.e. rely on taxation alone, not borrowing.
And Rachel Reeves has been clear – that’s not going to change, and there’s no disputing this.
But when the government announced its fiscal rules in October, it actually published a 19-page document – a “charter” – alongside this.
And this contains all sorts of notes and caveats. And it’s slightly unclear which are subject to the “iron clad” promise – and which aren’t.
There’s one part of that document coming into focus – with sources telling me that it could get changed.
And it’s this – a little-known buffer built into the rules.
This says that from spring 2027, if the OBR forecasts that she still actually has a deficit of up to 0.5% of GDP in three years, she will still be judged to be within the rules.
In other words, if in spring 2027 she’s judged to have missed her fiscal rules by perhaps as much as £15bn, that’s fine.
Image: A change could save the chancellor some headaches. Pic: PA
Now there’s a caveat – this exemption only applies, providing at the following budget the chancellor reduces that deficit back to zero.
But still, it’s potentially helpful wiggle room.
This help – this buffer – for Reeves doesn’t apply today, or for the next couple of years – it only kicks in from the spring of 2027.
But I’m being told by a source that some of this might change and the ability to use this wiggle room could be brought forward to this year. Could she give herself a get out of jail card?
The chancellor could gamble that few people would notice this technical change, and it might avoid politically catastrophic tax hikes – but only if the markets accept it will mean higher borrowing than planned.
But the question is – has Rachel Reeves ruled this out by saying her fiscal rules are iron clad or not?
Or to put it another way… is the whole of the 19-page Charter for Budget Responsibility “iron clad” and untouchable, or just the rules themselves?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:17
Is Labour plotting a ‘wealth tax’?
And what counts as “rules” and are therefore untouchable, and what could fall outside and could still be changed?
I’ve been pressing the Treasury for a statement.
And this morning, they issued one.
A spokesman said: “The fiscal rules as set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility are iron clad, and non-negotiable, as are the definition of the rules set out in the document itself.”
So that sounds clear – but what is a definition of the rule? Does it include this 0.5% of GDP buffer zone?
The Treasury does concede that not everything in the charter is untouchable – including the role and remit of the OBR, and the requirements for it to publish a specific list of fiscal metrics.
But does that include that key bit? Which bits can Reeves still tinker with?
The Justice Department says two LA Sheriff deputies admitted to helping extort victims, including for a local crypto mogul, while working their private security side hustles.