Testifying in court but without the jury for his criminal trial present, Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried faced questions from prosecutors who pressed the former FTX CEO on his alleged involvement in using customer funds for investments through Alameda Research.
According to reports from the New York courtroom on Oct. 26, Bankman-Fried denied knowing why crypto exchange FTX began moving user funds from a bank account with Alameda to a firm called North Dimension — a “shadowy entity” allegedly used for money laundering. SBF suggested that banks may have been more comfortable with North Dimension, avoiding well-known hedge funds connected to crypto like Alameda.
Bankman-Fried reportedly said he wasn’t heavily involved in North Dimension, but didn’t recall discussions with auditors about FTX user funds going to the entity as well as Alameda:
“I should say, I am not a lawyer, I am just trying to answer based on my recollection […] At the time [at] FTX, certain customers thought accounts would be sent to Alameda.”
SBF’s testimony, made in a court hearing without the jury present, was one of the last presentations by his defense team, consisting of attorneys Mark Cohen and Christian Everdell. He testified to believing that taking FTX deposits through Alameda Research was legal under questioning from his attorneys. At the same time, prosecutors asked about his role in the retention of documents and communications at FTX and Alameda.
“[T]he witness has an interesting way of responding to questions,” said Judge Kaplan on SBF’s testimony so far.
The criminal trial which started on Oct. 3 after months of preparation will likely end within the next seven days following Bankman-Fried’s testimony and closing arguments from both sides. Bankman-Fried could face conviction on up to seven charges in the current trial but is also expected to address five more criminal counts in a second trial in March 2024.
When TV cameras are let in to film world leaders meeting in person, the resulting footage is usually incredibly boring for journalists and incredibly safe for politicians.
Put through a total of almost 90 minutes of televised questioning alongside the American leader, it was his diciest encounter with the president yet.
But he still just about emerged intact.
For a start, he can claim substantive policy wins after Trump announced extra pressure on Vladimir Putin to negotiate a ceasefire and dialled up the concern over the devastating scenes coming from Gaza.
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
There were awkward moments aplenty though.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Image: The two leaders held talks in front of the media. Pic: Reuters
On green energy, immigration, taxation and online regulation, the differences were clear to see.
Sir Keir just about managed to paper over the cracks by chuckling at times, choosing his interventions carefully and always attempting to sound eminently reasonable.
At times, it had the energy of a man being forced to grin and bear inappropriate comments from his in-laws at an important family dinner.
But hey, it stopped a full Trump implosion – so I suppose that’s a win.
My main takeaway from this Scotland visit though is not so much the political gulf present between the two men, but the gulf in power.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:23
Trump gives Putin new deadline to end war
Sir Keir flew the length of the country he leads to be the guest at the visiting president’s resort.
He was then forced to sit through more than an hour of uncontrolled, freewheeling questioning from a man most of his party and voters despise, during which he was offered unsolicited advice on how to beat Nigel Farage and criticised (albeit indirectly) on key planks of his government’s policy platform.
In return he got warm words about him (and his wife) and relatively incremental announcements on two foreign policy priorities.
So why does he do it?
Because, to borrow a quote from a popular American political TV series: “Air Force One is a big plane and it makes a hell of a noise when it lands on your head.”
With Amazon and Walmart exploring stablecoins, institutions may be underestimating potential exposure of customer data on blockchains, posing risks to privacy and brand trust.
The European Central Bank may rely on regulated euro stablecoins and private innovation to counter the dominance of US dollar stablecoins, says adviser Jürgen Schaaf.