Gary Wang, FTX’s co-founder and former chief technology officer, again appeared in court on the fourth day of the criminal trial of former CEO Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried to speak on the connections between the crypto exchange and Alameda Research.
According to reports from Inner City Press, Wang returned to a New York courtroom on Oct. 6 and testified that Alameda’s account on FTX was the only one authorized to trade more than it had available — a feature called “allow negative.” The former chief technology officer reportedly claimed Bankman-Fried had ordered Wang and former FTX engineering director Nishad Singh to implement the feature in 2019.
The “allow negative” addition to FTX code’s, according to Wang, allowed Alameda to achieve a negative balance that was more than FTX had in revenue in 2020 — $200 million versus $150 million. He reportedly testified that Bankman-Fried had given Alameda a $65-billion line of credit despite making contrary statements to the public on the relationship between the two firms.
“We had said we wouldn’t use funds like this,” said Wang, according to reports. “After I said the Alameda balances were off by billions, [SBF] asked to meet in the Bahamas office. He asked me about the bug, and then he told Caroline [Ellison] Alameda can go ahead and return the borrows.”
According to Wang, Bankman-Fried claimed Alameda’s “special privileges” on FTX were centered around the exchange’s FTX Token (FTT), which the firm used for trading “when its account balance was below zero.” The former chief technology officer reportedly testified Alameda had been able to withdraw funds directly from FTX.
Subscribe to our ‘1 Minute Letter’ NOW for daily deep-dives straight to your inbox! ⚖️ Be the first to know every twist and turn in the Sam Bankman-Fried case! Subscribe now: https://t.co/jQOIYUv6IW#SBFpic.twitter.com/gp7zJu5sgy
At the center of the prosecution’s case against Bankman-Fried are allegations that the former CEO was responsible for using FTX user funds at Alameda without customers’ consent. During his testimony on Oct. 5, Wang admitted to committing crimes with Bankman-Fried and former Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison, having already pleaded guilty to fraud charges in December 2022.
“Just as the Elizabeth Holmes trial was not about diagnostic testing, the SBF trial is not about crypto,” Sheila Warren, CEO of the Crypto Council for Innovation, told Cointelegraph. “Sam is having a spectacular and ongoing implosion, and as this trial continues, we expect to see further evidence that Sam was out there primarily for himself.”
Bankman-Fried’s criminal trial is expected to continue through November, as Ellison and Singh are also likely witnesses against the former CEO. Between his stints in court, SBF will likely remain in jail through the trial following Judge Lewis Kaplan revoking his bail in August. It’s unclear if Bankman-Fried plans to take the stand himself.
The “White Whale” increased his social media pressure campaign to $2.5 million after claiming that MEXC requested an in-person KYC verification in Malaysia.
Prosecutors appealed the sentences given to HashFlare founders Sergei Potapenko and Ivan Turõgin, after arguing the pair should get 10 years in prison.
Nigel Farage has said he would take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if Reform win the next election.
The party’s leader also reaffirmed his pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act and disapply three other international treaties acting as “roadblocks” to deporting anyone entering the UK illegally.
In a speech about tackling illegal migration, he said a Reform government would detain and deport any migrants arriving illegally, including women and children, and they would “never, ever be allowed to stay”.
Sky News looks at what the ECHR is, how the UK could leave, and what could happen to human rights protections if it does.
What is the ECHR?
On 4 November 1950, the 12 member states of the newly formed Council of Europe (different to the EU) signed the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – otherwise known as the ECHR.
It came into force on 3 September 1953 and has since been signed by an additional 34 Council of Europe members who have joined, bringing the total to 46 signatories.
The treaty was drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust to protect people from the most serious human rights violations. It was also in response to the growth of Stalinism in central and Eastern Europe to protect members from communist subversion.
The treaty was the first time fundamental human rights were guaranteed in law.
Sir Winston Churchill helped establish the Council of Europe and was a driving force behind the ECHR, which came from the Charter of Human Rights that he championed and was drafted by British lawyers.
Image: Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR
To be a signatory of the ECHR, a state has to be a member of the Council of Europe – and they must “respect pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights”.
There are 18 sections, including the most well-known: Article 1 (the right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).
The ECHR has been used to halt the deportation of migrants in 13 out of 29 UK cases since 1980.
ECHR protections are enforced in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates most ECHR rights into domestic law. This means individuals can bring cases to UK courts to argue their ECHR rights have been violated, instead of having to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Article 8 is the main section that has been used to stop illegal migrant deportations, but Article 3 has also been successfully used.
Image: The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP
How is it actually used?
The ECHR is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – you’ll have to bear with us on the confusingly similar acronyms.
The convention is interpreted under the “living instrument doctrine”, meaning it must be considered in the light of present-day conditions.
The number of full-time judges corresponds to the number of ECHR signatories, so there are currently 46 – each nominated by their state for a non-renewable nine-year term. But they are prohibited from having any institutional ties with the state they come from.
An individual, group of individuals, or one or more of the signatory states can lodge an application alleging one of the signatory states has breached their human rights. Anyone who have exhausted their human rights case in UK courts can apply to the ECtHR to have their case heard in Strasbourg.
All ECtHR hearings must be heard in public, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be heard in private, which happens most of the time following written pleadings.
The court may award damages, typically no more than £1,000 plus legal costs, but it lacks enforcement powers, so some states have ignored verdicts and continued practices judged to be human rights violations.
Image: Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP
How could the UK leave?
A country can leave the convention by formally denouncing it, but it would likely have to also leave the Council of Europe as the two are dependent on each other.
At the international level, a state must formally notify the Council of Europe of its intention to withdraw with six months’ notice, when the UK would still have to implement any ECtHR rulings and abide by ECHR laws.
The UK government would have to seek parliament’s approval before notifying the ECtHR, and would have to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 – which would also require parliamentary approval.
Would the UK leaving breach any other agreements?
Leaving the ECHR would breach the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a deal between the British and Irish governments on how Northern Ireland should be governed, which could threaten the peace settlement.
It would also put the UK’s relationship with the EU under pressure as the Brexit deal commits both to the ECHR.
The EU has said if the UK leaves the ECHR it would terminate part of the agreement, halting the extradition of criminal suspects from the EU to face trial in the UK.
Image: Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR
How would the UK’s human rights protections change?
Certain rights under the ECHR are also recognised in British common law, but the ECHR has a more extensive protection of human rights.
For example, it was the ECHR that offered redress to victims of the Hillsborough disaster and the victims of “black cab rapist” John Worboys after state investigations failed.
Before cases were taken to the ECtHR and the Human Rights Act came into force, the common law did not prevent teachers from hitting children or protect gay people from being banned from serving in the armed forces.
Repealing the ECHR would also mean people in the UK would no longer be able to take their case to the ECtHR if the UK courts do not remedy a violation of their rights.
The UK’s human rights record would then not be subject to the same scrutiny as it is under the ECHR, where states review each other’s actions.
Image: Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA
How human rights in the UK would be impacted depends partly on what would replace the Human Rights Act.
Mr Farage has said he would introduce a British Bill of Rights, which would apply only to UK citizens and lawful British citizens.
He has said it would not mention “human rights” but would include “the freedom to do everything, unless there’s a law that says you can’t” – which is how common law works.
Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said this would simply confirm the rights to which people are already entitled, but would also remove rights enjoyed by people visiting the UK.