Gary Wang, the co-founder and former chief technology officer of cryptocurrency exchange FTX, was the latest witness to testify in the criminal trial of former CEO Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried.
According to reports from Inner City Press, Wang addressed the courtroom on Oct. 5 following testimony from former FTX developer Adam Yedidia and Paradigm co-founder Matt Huang. The former CTO reportedly admitted to committing crimes during his time at FTX with the help of Bankman-Fried, former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison and former FTX engineering director Nishad Singh.
“We allowed Alameda to withdraw unlimited funds,” said Wang in response to questioning from Assistant United States Attorney Danielle Sassoon.
He added:
“[Sam handled] speaking to the media, lobbying, talking with investors. I just coded […] in the end it was Sam’s decision to make [regarding any disagreements].”
Oct. 5 marked the third day of Bankman-Fried’s criminal trial in New York. Witnesses largely spoke of connections between Alameda and FTX prior to the exchange’s bankruptcy filing, including testimony that SBF had directed employees to use FTX user funds to cover losses at Alameda. Wang’s testimony was a result of an agreement with prosecutors as part of a guilty plea filed in December 2022. Ellison and Singh are also expected to testify against SBF before the trial likely concludes in November.
Bankman-Fried will likely remain in jail through his criminal trial following an order from Judge Lewis Kaplan revoking his bail in August. Prosecutors accused SBF of engaging in witness intimidation against Ellison and others.
It’s unclear if SBF plans to speak in his own defense at trial. Under the U.S. Constitution, no person can be forced to offer certain testimony if they might incriminate themselves.
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.