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.”
The Rio Tinto Group logo atop Central Park tower, which houses the company’s offices, in Perth, Australia, on Friday, Jan. 17, 2025.
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images
The mining sector appears poised for a frantic year of dealmaking, following market speculation over a potential tie-up between industry giants Rio Tinto and Glencore.
It comes after Bloomberg News reported Thursday that British-Australian multinational Rio Tinto and Switzerland-based Glencore were in early-stage merger talks, although it was not clear whether the discussions were still live.
Separately, Reuters reported Friday that Glencore approached Rio Tinto late last year about the possibility of combining their businesses, citing a source familiar with the matter. The talks, which were said to be brief, were thought to be no longer active, the news agency reported.
Rio Tinto and Glencore both declined to comment when contacted by CNBC.
A prospective merger between Rio Tinto, the world’s second-largest miner, and Glencore, one of world’s largest coal companies, would rank as the mining industry’s largest-ever deal.
Combined, the two firms would have a market value of approximately $150 billion, leapfrogging longstanding industry leader BHP, which is worth about $127 billion.
Analysts were broadly skeptical about the merits of a Rio Tinto-Glencore merger, pointing to limited synergies, Rio Tinto’s complex dual structure and strategic divergences over coal and corporate culture as factors that pose a challenge for concluding a deal.
“I think everyone’s a bit surprised,” Maxime Kogge, equity analyst at Oddo BHF, told CNBC via telephone.
“Honestly, they have limited overlapping assets. It’s only copper where there is really some synergies and opportunity to add assets to make a bigger group,” Kogge said.
Global mining giants have been mulling the benefits of mega-mergers to shore up their position in the energy transition, particularly with demand for metals such as copper expected to skyrocket over the coming years.
A highly conductive metal, copper is projected to face shortages due to its use in powering electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels and energy storage systems, among other applications.
Oddo BHF’s Kogge said it is currently “really tricky” for large mining firms to bring new projects online, citing Rio Tinto’s long-delayed and controversial Resolution copper mine in the U.S. as one example.
“It’s a very promising copper project, it could be one of the largest in the world, but it is fraught with issues and somehow acquiring another company is a way to really accelerate the expansion into copper,” Kogge said.
“For me, a deal is not so attractive,” he added. “It goes against what all these groups have previously tried to do.”
Last year, BHP made a $49 billion bid for smaller rival Anglo American, a proposal which ultimately failed due to issues with the deal’s structure.
Some analysts, including those at JPMorgan, expect another unsolicited offer for Anglo American to materialize in 2025.
M&A parlor games
Analysts led by Dominic O’Kane at JPMorgan said the bank’s “high conviction view” that 2025 would be defined by mergers and acquisitions (M&A), particularly among U.K.-listed miners and global copper companies, was coming to fruition just two weeks into the year.
The Wall Street bank said its own analysis of the mining sector found that the current economic and risk management environment meant M&A was likely preferred to the building of organic projects.
Analysts at JPMorgan predicted the latest speculation would soon thrust Anglo American back into the spotlight, “specifically the merits and probability of another combination proposal from BHP.”
Prior to pursuing Anglo American, BHP completed an acquisition of OZ Minerals in 2023, bolstering its copper and nickel portfolio.
The company logo adorns the side of the BHP gobal headquarters in Melbourne on February 21, 2023. – The Australian multinational, a leading producer of metallurgical coal, iron ore, nickel, copper and potash, said net profit slumped 32 percent year-on-year to 6.46 billion US dollars in the six months to December 31. (Photo by William WEST / AFP) (Photo by WILLIAM WEST/AFP via Getty Images)
William West | Afp | Getty Images
Analysts led by Ben Davis at RBC Capital Markets said it remains unclear whether talks between Rio Tinto and Glencore could result in a simple merger or require the breakup of certain parts of each company instead.
Regardless, they said the M&A parlor games that arose following merger talks between BHP and Anglo American will undoubtedly “start up again in earnest.”
“Despite Glencore once approaching Rio Tinto’s key shareholder Chinalco in July 2014 for a potential merger, it still comes as a surprise,” analysts at RBC Capital Markets said in a research note published Thursday.
BHP’s move to acquire Anglo American may have catalyzed talks between Rio Tinto and Glencore, the analysts said, with the former potentially looking to gain more copper exposure and the latter seeking an exit strategy for its large shareholders.
“We would not expect a straight merger to happen as we believe Rio shareholders would see it as favouring Glencore, but [it’s] possible there is a deal structure out there that could keep both sets of shareholders and management happy,” they added.
Copper, coal and culture
Analysts led by Wen Li at CreditSights said speculation over a Rio Tinto-Glencore merger raises questions about strategic alignment and corporate culture.
“Strategically, Rio Tinto might be interested in Glencore’s copper assets, aligning with its focus on sustainable, future-facing metals. Additionally, Glencore’s marketing business could offer synergies and expand Rio Tinto’s reach,” analysts at CreditSights said in a research note published Friday.
“However, Rio Tinto’s lack of interest in coal assets, due to recent divestments, suggests any merger would need careful structuring to avoid unwanted asset overlaps,” they added.
A mining truck carries a full load of coal at Glencore Plc operated Tweefontein coal mine on October 16, 2024 in Tweefontein, Mpumalanga Province, South Africa.
From a cultural perspective, analysts at CreditSights said Rio Tinto was known for its conservative approach and focus on stability, whereas Glencore had garnered a reputation for “constantly pushing the envelope in its operations.”
“This cultural divide might pose challenges in integration and decision-making if a merger were to proceed,” analysts at CreditSights said.
“If this materializes, it could have broader implications for mega deals in the metals [and] mining space, potentially putting BHP/Anglo American back in play,” they added.
GreenPower Motor Company says it’s received three orders for 11 of its BEAST electric Type D school buses for western state school districts in Arizona, California, and Oregon.
GreenPower hasn’t made the sort of headline-grabbing promises or big-money commitments that companies like Nikola and Lion Electric have, but while those companies are floundering GPM seems to be plugging away, taking orders where it can and actually delivering buses to schools. Late last year, the company scored 11 more orders for its flagship BEAST electric school bus.
As far as these latest orders go, the breakdown is:
seven to Los Banos Unified School District in Los Banos, California
two for the Hood River County School District in Hood River, Oregon
two for the Casa Grande Elementary School District in Casa Grande, Arizona
Those two BEAST electric school buses for Arizona will join another 90-passenger BEAST that was delivered to Phoenix Elementary School District #1, which operates 15 schools in the center of Phoenix, late last year.
“As school districts continue to make the change from NOx emitting diesel school buses to a cleaner, healthier means of transporting students, school district transportation departments are pursuing the gold standard of the industry – the GreenPower all-electric, purpose-built (BEAST) school buses,” said Paul Start, GreenPower’s Vice President of Sales, School Bus Group. “(The) GreenPower school bus order pipeline and production schedule are both at record levels with sales projections for (2025) set to eclipse the 2024 calendar year.”
GreenPower moved into an 80,000-square-foot production facility in South Charleston, West Virigina in August 2022, and delivered its first buses to that state the following year.
Electrek’s Take
Since the first horseless carriage companies started operating 100 years ago (give or take), at least 1,900 different companies have been formed in the US, producing over 3,000 brands of American automobiles. By the mid 1980s, that had distilled down to “the big 3.”
All of which is to say: don’t let the recent round of bankruptcies fool you – startups in the car and truck industry is business as usual, but some of these companies will stick around. If you’re wondering which ones, look to the ones that are making units, not promises.
While some recent high-profile bankruptcies have cast doubt on the EV startup space recently, medium-duty electric truck maker Harbinger got a shot of credibility this week with a massive $100 million Series B funding round co-led by Capricorn’s Technology Impact Fund.
It’s been a rough couple of weeks for fledgling EV brands like Lion Electric and Canoo, but box van builder Harbinger is bucking the trend, fueling its latest funding round with an order book of 4,690 vehicles that’s valued at nearly $500 million. Some of the company’s more notable customers including Bimbo Bakeries (which owns brands like Sara Lee, Thomas’, and Entenmann’s) and THOR Industries (Airstream, Jayco, Thor), which is also one of the investors in the Series B.
The company plans to use the funds to ramp up to higher-volume production capacity and deliver on existing orders, as well as build-out of the company’s sales, customer support, and service operations.
“Harbinger is entering a rapid growth phase where we are focused on scaling production of our customer-ready platform,” said John Harris, co-founder and CEO. “These funds catalyze significant revenue generation. We’ve developed a vehicle for a segment that is ripe for electrification, and there is a strong product/market fit that will help fuel our upward trajectory through 2025 and beyond.”
The company has raised $200 million since its inception in 2021.