Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried’s two multimillion-dollar luxury jets are now subject to forfeiture, according to a filing from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) on Oct. 4.
The document states the possibility of forfeiture comes as a result of the “offenses described in Counts One through Four and Seven of Indictment 22 Cr. 673 (LAK),” which were brought against SBF.
The aircraft listed are a Bombardier Global and an Embraer Legacy. These two aircraft are currently at the heart of an ownership debacle between the government, FTX and the aviation company operating the jets, Island Air Capital, according to documents filed on Sept. 21 with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.
In the arguments, the government said both aircraft are subject to forfeiture due to being purchased with fraudulent funds, while FTX says the loans used to purchase the jets were not documented.
In December 2022, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) filed a lawsuit against SBF, FTX and Alameda Research, accusing the latter parties of violating the Commodity Exchange Act. Accusations against SBF from the CFTC included that he “used FTX customer funds for a variety of personal expenditures,” one of which was the private jets.
This filing comes as Bankman-Fried is currently standing trial for multiple charges related to the fall of FTX in November 2022. SBF has pleaded not guilty to all charges. The trial is presided over by Judge Lewis Kaplan.
The trial began on Oct. 3 with jury selection, and opening arguments from the prosecution and the defense were heard the following day on Oct. 4.
The DOJ’s opening statement portrayed Bankman-Fried as deliberately deceiving customers and investors to get rich and expand his operations, while SBF’s defense argued he is simply a young entrepreneur whose business plans “didn’t work out.”
Cointelegraph is on the ground in New York with the latest updates on the trial. Follow live updates here.
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.