Sam Bankman-Fried’s lawyers reveal his planned testimony in FTX fraud trial
Lawyers for Sam Bankman-Fried late Wednesday revealed details of his planned testimony if he takes the witness stand at his FTX fraud trial.
Bankman-Fried’s legal team told Judge Lewis Kaplan in a six-page letter that he would address three key areas in such testimony, including suggesting that he relied on FTX’s former legal team in allowing some actions that later led to the implosion and bankruptcy of the cryptocurrency exchange.
Lawyers for the disgraced FTX chief also said he would also cite his understanding of common industry practices, as well as his intention to comply with Bahamian authorities.
Bankman-Fried faces seven criminal counts, including wire fraud, securities fraud and money laundering, that could land him in prison for more than 100 years if he is convicted at his trial in Manhattan federal court.
Bankman-Fried, the son of two Stanford legal scholars, has pleaded not guilty in the case.
Will he or won’t he?
The letter to Kaplan appears to cast doubt on whether the disgraced crypto billionaire will take the witness stand.
Earlier Wednesday, one of Bankman-Fried’s two chief trial attorneys, Mark Cohen, said in a conference call that his client would testify as would three other people.
But in his letter Wednesday evening, Cohen wrote, “Accordingly, should Mr. Bankman-Fried decide to testify in his defense, he should be permitted to testify as to his understanding of industry practices regarding use of omnibus wallets to show his good faith and lack of criminal intent.”
The statement suggests Bankman-Fried might stand down on testifying, should the defense’s requests be rejected.
Blaming ex-FTX lawyers
Kaplan previously ruled that Bankman-Fried’s lawyers could not make a so-called advice of counsel argument in their opening remarks since it might risk prejudicing the jury.
But Cohen in the new letter told Kaplan that although prosecutors “previously moved to preclude Mr. Bankman-Fried from offering evidence or argument regarding the involvement of attorneys,” Bankman-Fried’s “knowledge of the involvement of counsel in these matters” is “directly relevant” to “his state of mind and good faith at the time.”
Cohen cited specific examples where, at the guidance of FTX lawyers, Bankman-Fried adopted a policy which prosecutors argued shows his criminality.
One example was company-wide policy on the encrypted messaging app Signal.
Caroline Ellison, Bankman-Fried’s ex-girlfriend who also ran crypto hedge fund Alameda Research, testified SBF directed FTX and Alameda employees to use the disappearing message setting on Signal. She said he told them to be very careful about what they put in writing because of potential legal exposure.
Lesser-known FTX co-founder and ex-chief technology officer Gary Wang, as well as senior FTX developer Adam Yedidia, also testified to the directive that Signal communications be set to auto-delete.
The government similarly asserted in its opening argument before the jury that the 30-day auto-deletion policy on Signal was because Bankman-Fried “didn’t want a paper trail for his crimes.”
But Cohen wrote that Bankman-Fried’s understanding was that these auto-deletion policies were “instituted under the guidances of lawyers.”
In another example, Cohen pointed to the billions of dollars worth of FTX customer deposits that went directly into a bank account controlled by Alameda.
Prosecutors say customer cash was shuttled to Alameda via two channels: users depositing cash directly into accounts held by Alameda and through a secret backdoor that was baked into FTX’s code.
But attorneys for Bankman-Fried allege that SBF’s “understanding as to the involvement of counsel in the formation” of these accounts and in the payment arrangement established between FTX and Alameda would be “directly relevant” to the defendant’s “good faith belief that there was nothing improper about using Alameda-controlled entities to accept FTX customer deposits.”
In these and other examples involving the guidance of former FTX counsel, defense attorneys for Bankman-Fried return to the same rationale that the ex-FTX chief was acting in good faith and not with the criminal intent alleged by the government.
Blaming the Bahamian authorities
Wang has testified that last Nov. 12, after FTX declared bankruptcy, Bankman-Fried asked that Wang drive with him to the Bahamas Securities Commission for a meeting.
On the drive, Bankman-Fried told Wang to transfer assets to Bahamian liquidators because he believed they would allow him to maintain control of the company. Wang said he was not in the meeting with the securities authority, though Bankman-Fried’s dad was present. Wang said he returned to the U.S. and met with American prosecutors the next day.
He faces up to 50 years in prison when he faces a judge for sentencing following this trial. He told jurors he signed a six-page cooperation agreement that requires him to meet with prosecutors, answer their questions truthfully and turn over evidence.
Feds further allege that SBF prioritized paying certain creditors, including Bahamian authorities. In its pretrial motion, the government pointed to Bankman-Fried’s “criminal intent,” as well as the “false nature of his representations” that he wanted to “do right by customers.”
Cohen writes, “We anticipate eliciting testimony from Mr. Bankman-Fried regarding his good faith intentions on November 12, 2022 with respect to compliance with orders by Bahamian authorities to transfer assets from FTX to the Securities Commission of The Bahamas over the objections of FTX’s in-house counsel and U.S. bankruptcy counsel.”
“Such testimony would require Mr. Bankman-Fried to discuss his belief that the Bahamian authorities were acting in the best interests of FTX customers, whereas FTX’s in-house counsel and outside bankruptcy counsel in the United States had conflicts of interest,” the letter continues.
Blaming the status quo in crypto
Bankman-Fried’s understanding of commonly accepted industry practices may also figure prominently in his testimony.
In the crypto vernacular, an omnibus account is where the digital assets of multiple users are held collectively in a single account. Cryptocurrency exchanges and others in the industry typically use this type of collective storage strategy into order to slash costs and streamline the workflow.
In the case of FTX, the commingling of customer and company assets has become a major point of contention between the government and the defense.
Prosecutors argued that FTX’s “use of omnibus wallets is relevant to this case,” the letter said.
“For example, the Government elicited testimony from Mr. Sun that he did not believe that FTX customer deposits could permissibly be commingled with other funds of the business … and that FTX utilized an omnibus wallet for all customer digital assets,” the document continues, referring to FTX’s former general counsel, Can Sun.
“We respectfully submit that Mr. Bankman-Fried’s knowledge of industry practices regarding the use of omnibus wallets is relevant to his good faith belief that his conduct was permissible,” the letter added.
“Mr. Bankman-Fried’s understanding of whether FTX’s actions were consistent with the crypto industry practices with regard to use of omnibus wallets is probative of his good faith belief that FTX’s (and his own) actions were proper.”
This week on Electrek’s Wheel-E podcast, we discuss the most popular news stories from the world of electric bikes and other nontraditional electric vehicles. This time, that includes the potential end of Rad Power Bikes, Tern’s new belt-drive Vektron, a semi-solid-state e-bike battery coming soon on a production e-bike, ALSO drops price on its entry-level model, a tilting flat-bed electric trike/truck, and more.
The Wheel-E podcast returns every two weeks on Electrek’s YouTube channel, Facebook, Linkedin, and Twitter.
As a reminder, we’ll have an accompanying post, like this one, on the site with an embedded link to the live stream. Head to the YouTube channel to get your questions and comments in.
After the show ends, the video will be archived on YouTube and the audio on all your favorite podcast apps:
We also have a Patreon if you want to help us to avoid more ads and invest more in our content. We have some awesome gifts for our Patreons and more coming.
Here are a few of the articles that we will discuss during the Wheel-E podcast today:
Here’s the live stream for today’s episode starting at 9:00 a.m. ET (or the video after 10:00 a.m. ET):
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
For most of human history, currency was a direct claim on tangible, productive output. Before the abstraction of government fiat or cryptocurrency, value was stored in things that required real work and resources, bushels of grain, livestock, gold, assets with their own direct productive output: horses, and tragically, slaves.
These were the foundational assets of economies, representing a direct link between labor, resources, and stored value.
As we accelerate into an all-electric, all-digital age, this fundamental link is re-emerging, but with a new unit of account. The 21st-century economy, defined by automated industry, robotic, electric transport, and now power-hungry artificial intelligence, runs on a single, non-negotiable input: electricity. In this new paradigm, the real base currency, the ultimate representation of productive capacity, is the kilowatt-hour (kWh).
The kWh is the new economic base layer.
Last week, I was in Bijiashan Park at night overlooking Shenzhen, arguably the most technologically advanced city on earth, built over the previous few decades, partly on cheap electricity, cheap labor, and manufacturing innovations.
I could see the giant high-voltage power lines coming over Yinhu Mountain to power the constant light show that is Shenzhen at night. I couldn’t help but think about how cheap electricity and a strong grid have been critical to China’s exceptional economic rise.
As you stroll around the city, you see power everywhere. There are charging stations at every corner, including insane 1 MW charging posts, electric cars and trucks, trucks that carry batteries to electric scooter shops, which are also literally everywhere.
Everything moves on electric power. Industries are powered by electricity, and now, with the advent of AI, virtually everything is increasingly processed by LLMs, which are ultimately powered by electricity through power-hungry data centers.
In a world where everything runs on electricity, electricity itself becomes the currency of civilization.
It is measurable, divisible, storable, and universal – all qualities that a currency needs, but unlike fiat and crypto, it’s actually directly linked to productive output. No politics. No inflation. Just physics.
This concept is not merely academic; it appears to be the quiet, guiding principle in China. While others debate the merits of decentralized digital tokens, China is executing a multi-pronged strategy that treats electricity as the foundational strategic asset it has become.
First, China is building the “mint” for this new currency at an incredible, world-changing scale, and it has retained absolute state control over its distribution. Its deployment of new electricity generation, particularly from renewables, is staggering. The country met its 2030 target of 1,200 gigawatts of renewable capacity five years early, in 2025.
In 2024 alone, renewable energy accounted for a record 56% of the nation’s total installed capacity, with clean generation meeting 84% of all new demand.
Here’s a comparison of electricity generation between China and the US:
If this chart doesn’t scare the West. I don’t know what will. The trend is not reversing any time soon. In fact, it appears to be accelerating as China is doubling down on solar and nuclear.
State-owned monoliths manage this entire system, primarily the State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC), the world’s largest utility. For better or worse, this centralized control allows the state to execute massive national strategies impossible in a liberalized market, such as building an Ultra-High-Voltage (UHV) grid to transmit power from remote solar and wind farms in the west to the power-hungry industrial hubs on its coast.
Second, China wields its control over the grid as a precision tool of industrial policy. China’s average electricity rate of $0.084/kWh is cheaper than most of the rest of the world, but its power lies not in the base price but in its strategic application. The government deploys a “Differential Electricity Pricing” policy: a “stick” that penalizes low-tech, high-consumption industries with higher rates, and a “carrot” that provides preferential pricing to incentivize strategic sectors.
The most potent example is in the AI sector. China is now offering massive electricity subsidies, cutting power bills by up to half, for data centers run by giants like Alibaba and Tencent. The condition for this cheap power is that these companies must use locally-made, Chinese AI chips, such as those from Huawei.
China is spending its “electricity currency” to directly fund the growth of its domestic AI chip industry and sever its dependence on foreign technology. This same logic applies to its global dominance in green tech, where state-subsidized firms like BYD benefit from a state-controlled industrial ecosystem built on reliable, managed power.
Third, and possibly the most explicit exemplification of China viewing electricity as the base currency is its moves against cryptocurrency.
In 2021, the government banned all cryptocurrency transactions and mining. While the official reasons cited financial stability, the move might have had a deeper, strategic intention.
From the state’s perspective, it was a tool for capital flight, allowing wealth to bypass government controls. But in a world where electricity rules, cryptocurrencies are, in effect, a competing “currency” that burns the foundational asset (electricity) to create a decentralized store of value.
By banning crypto, China simultaneously reclaimed its monopoly on economic control and shut down a massive, “wasteful” leak of its most precious resource. It freed up that generating capacity to be strategically allocated to its preferred industries, like AI and manufacturing.
China’s actions, viewed together, are a clear and coherent strategy. By massively investing in and securing total state control over its domestic electricity supply (the “mint”), using its price as a tool to fuel strategic industries, and banning decentralized competitors that consume the same resource, China is making a clear bet. It has been recognized that in an age where all productivity is powered by the grid, the ultimate source of national power is not gold, fiat, or crypto, but the state-controlled kilowatt-hour.
The Blockchain and Crypto: Ledger vs. Furnace
This perspective brings a critical nuance to the role of blockchain technology. In an economy where electricity is the base currency, the blockchain makes perfect sense, but only as a ledger, not as a store of value.
A distributed ledger is the ideal technological layer to act as the accounting system for this new economy. It can track the generation, transmission, and consumption of every kilowatt-hour with perfect transparency. It can automate complex industrial contracts and manage the grid’s load balancing without a central intermediary. In this sense, blockchain is the “banking software” for the electricity standard.
However, “Proof of Work” cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin face a fatal contradiction within this paradigm. They aim to serve as a store of value by burning the base currency (electricity) to secure the network. If the kilowatt-hour is the 21st-century equivalent of gold, then Bitcoin mining is akin to melting down gold bars to print a paper receipt. It destroys the productive asset to create a derivative token.
Bitcoin is quickly losing credibility as a classical safe store of value. It trades like a security, at least over the last year, and its value is only whatever the next moron is willing to pay, with no valuable asset behind it.
China’s strategy reflects this precise understanding. While they ruthlessly banned Bitcoin mining (the “furnace” that wastes the asset), they have simultaneously championed the Blockchain-based Service Network (BSN) and the Digital Yuan. They have embraced the ledger to track and control their energy economy, while rejecting the supposed asset that destroys it.
This is a trap that crypto fans often fall into. They recognize the value of the blockchain, which is real, but they mistakenly broadly assign the same value to cryptocurrency, which is simply an application of the blockchain.
Electrek’s Take
What I’m trying to explore in this op-ed is the idea that if the present is electric and the future is even more electric, then it makes sense for electricity to be the foundation of the economy.
If electricity is the backbone of global trade and the metric of productivity, the kWh ultimately becomes the real currency of a truly electrified world.
And I think China has figured this out, as evidenced by its new electricity generation surpassing the rest of the world combined and by its ban on cryptocurrency.
They are going to let the rest of the world hold the crypto bag while they have more electricity generation than anyone to power their industries, which are already taking over the world.
I think the rest of the world should learn from this. Instead of pouring capital into meme coins and made-up stores of value, we should invest in electricity generation and storage.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024