Connect with us

Published

on

FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried arrives at Manhattan Federal Court for a court appearance in New York, United States on June 15, 2023. 

Fatih Aktas/ | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images

Sam Bankman-Fried, who pleaded not guilty to criminal fraud charges tied to the collapse of his crypto empire, has one last chance to get a Manhattan jury to believe him.

After two days on the witness stand, Bankman-Fried is set to wrap up his testimony on Tuesday. All that’s left is a couple more hours of cross-examination by prosecutors, followed by a redirect examination by Bankman-Fried’s team. After that, the defense plans to rest its case.

The roughly four-week trial has largely consisted of government-supported testimony from Bankman-Fried’s former close friends, confidants and top executives at crypto exchange FTX and sister hedge fund Alameda Research. They all singled out Bankman-Fried as the mastermind of a scheme to use FTX customer money to fund everything from venture investments and a high-priced condo in the Bahamas to covering Alameda’s crypto losses after the market crashed last year.

Bankman-Fried’s defense failed to land any significant blows in cross-examining the prosecution’s key witnesses, including Caroline Ellison, the defendant’s ex-girlfriend and the former head of Alameda. When it was defense attorney Mark Cohen’s chance to take the lead, he only called three witnesses, with the bulk of his case riding on Bankman-Fried’s ability to convince the jury of his story.

The 31-year-old former billionaire, whose crypto businesses spiraled into bankruptcy over the course of a few days last November, told jurors in his first day on the stand on Friday that he didn’t commit fraud and that he thought FTX’s outside expenditures, like paying for the naming rights at a sports arena, came out of company profits.

When asked by Cohen on Friday morning if he defrauded anyone, Bankman-Fried said, “No, I did not.” His lawyer then asked if he took customer money, to which Bankman-Fried said, “No.”

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried is questioned by prosecutor Danielle Sassoon during his fraud trial over the collapse of the bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange, before U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan at federal court in New York City, U.S., October 30, 2023 in this courtroom sketch. 

Jane Rosenberg | Reuters

Bankman-Fried, the son of two Stanford University legal scholars, faces seven criminal counts, including wire fraud, securities fraud and money laundering, that could land him in prison for life if he’s convicted. His argument to the jury is that he made mistakes, like not having a risk management team in place, which led to “significant oversights.” But when it comes to the central question — what happened to billions of dollars in customer money — Bankman-Fried doesn’t offer any clear explanations and claims to not really know.

Ellison, who was one of several witnesses cooperating with the government on a plea deal, had a more precise answer, in her Oct. 10 appearance on the stand.

“We ultimately took around $14 billion, some of which we were able to pay back,” she said. “I sent balance sheets to lenders at the direction of Sam that incorrectly stated Alameda’s assets and liabilities.”

Ellison said Alameda siphoned several billion dollars from FTX customers and that Bankman-Fried had not only set up a system to steal the funds but also directed Ellison and others to use customer funds to repay loans in the ballpark of $10 billion.

Bankman-Fried testified that he wasn’t aware of the amount Alameda was borrowing from FTX, or its theoretical max. As long as Alameda’s net asset value was positive and the scale of borrowing was reasonable, increasing its line of credit so that Alameda could keep filling orders was fine, he said. Earlier testimony from former engineering director Nishad Singh and co-founder Gary Wang suggested the line of credit was raised to $65 billion, a number Bankman-Fried said he wasn’t aware of.

Prosecutors entered corroborating materials, including encrypted Signal messages and other internal documents that appear to show Bankman-Fried orchestrating the spending of FTX customer money.

‘Average level sports fan’

Caroline Ellison, former chief executive officer of Alameda Research LLC, leaves Manhattan Federal Court after testifying during the trial of FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, on October 10, 2023 in New York City. 

Michael M. Santiago | Getty Images

When it came to Ellison, Bankman-Fried said that he repeatedly tried to make sure she was implementing sufficient hedging strategies at Alameda to ensure the fund didn’t collapse under the weight of tumbling crypto prices.

Bankman-Fried testified about several conversations on the matter he’d had with Ellison between June and September 2022, and said he was notably concerned about the decline in Alameda’s net asset value from $40 billion the prior year to $10 billion.

The market had already dropped 70% and if it fell another 50%, he was afraid the firm would be insolvent, Bankman-Fried told the jury.

“She started crying,” Bankman-Fried said, regarding Ellison’s reaction when he told her that. “She agreed.”

Bankman-Fried said Ellison offered to resign over the matter, but the defendant testified he wasn’t focused on blame or past failures but rather making sure that Alameda remained solvent.

In September, he checked in again with Ellison about the hedging activity, Bankman-Fried testified. Ellison told him Alameda had hedged. He asked about the scale of the trades and said his instinct was that they could have been twice the size. After Ellison sent him spreadsheets about the trades, she agreed there was more room to hedge and she did so, Bankman-Fried said.

In walking through FTX’s failure, Bankman-Fried discussed the role played by Singh, who was also called as a government witness. Bankman-Fried highlighted Singh’s personal financial problems, and said he was suicidal with a therapist on call 24/7 to watch over him. Bankman-Fried said he was trying to comfort Singh about his loans and expenses in part to prevent him from hurting himself.

In describing the swift downfall of FTX, Bankman-Fried said that customer withdrawals had quickly increased from $50 million a day to $1 billion a day. He said it was like a run on the bank and he was very concerned since the only way to withdraw all customer funds was to liquidate every open margin trade.

Bankman-Fried defended his tweets from early November that he said were designed to ease customer concerns.

Regarding the “assets are fine” tweet he wrote during the panic, he said he thought Alameda’s net asset value was roughly $10 billion and that FTX didn’t have a hole in its balance sheet.

“My view was the exchange was OK and there was no hole in the assets,” he told the court.

Shorter answers

In testimony later on Monday, Bankman-Fried was faced with cross-examination as the government had its turn with the defendant. Far from the more descriptive answers Bankman-Fried provided in response to Cohen’s questions, the prosecutors inquiries were met with a lot of quick replies like “Yep” and “I don’t recall.”

In some instances, his answers were directly followed with a government exhibit, such as a tweet, interview transcript, congressional testimony or email, intended to dispute his answer.

For example, Assistant U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon asked Bankman-Fried if he assured people that Alameda played by the same rules as others on the FTX exchange. Bankman-Fried said he wasn’t sure. The government followed by showing a tweet from him directly addressing the topic along with an email in which he wrote that Alameda’s account is like everyone else’s.

After the government wraps its questioning on Tuesday and the defense gets its shot at redirect, all that’s left on the docket is two witness rebuttals from the prosecution. One will come from an FBI data analyst and the other from an employee at investment firm Apollo, which had been in talks to help finance an FTX rescue.

At that point, Bankman-Fried’s fate will lie in the hands of the 12 jurors who have spent the past four weeks sitting a few feet away from the defendant in a lower Manhattan courtroom.

If you are having suicidal thoughts or are in distress, contact the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988 for support and assistance from a trained counselor.

— CNBC’s Dawn Giel contributed to this report

WATCH: Sam Bankman-Fried walks jury through final days of FTX

Sam Bankman-Fried walks jury through final days of FTX: CNBC Crypto World

Continue Reading

Technology

SpaceX aims for $800 billion valuation in secondary share sale, WSJ reports

Published

on

By

SpaceX aims for 0 billion valuation in secondary share sale, WSJ reports

Dado Ruvic | Reuters

Elon Musk’s SpaceX, is initiating a secondary share sale that would give the company a valuation of up to $800 billion, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

SpaceX is also telling some investors it will consider going public possibly around the end of next year, the report said.

At the elevated price, Musk’s aerospace and defense contractor would be valued above ChatGPT maker OpenAI, which wrapped up a share sale at a $500 billion valuation in October.

SpaceX has been investing heavily in reusable rockets, launch facilities and satellites, while competing for government contracts with newer space players, including Jeff Bezos‘ Blue Origin. SpaceX is far ahead, and operates the world’s largest network of satellites in low earth orbit through Starlink, which powers satellite internet services under the same brand name.

A SpaceX IPO would include its Starlink business, which the company previously considered spinning out.

Musk recently discussed whether SpaceX would go public during Tesla‘s annual shareholders meeting last month. Musk, who is the CEO of both companies, said he doesn’t love running publicly traded businesses, in part because they draw “spurious lawsuits,” and can “make it very difficult to operate effectively.”

However, Musk said during the meeting that he wanted to “try to figure out some way for Tesla shareholders to participate in SpaceX,” adding, “maybe at some point, SpaceX should become a public company despite all the downsides.”

WATCH: What retail investors should know about OpenAI and SpaceX

Want to ‘invest' in OpenAI and SpaceX? How tokenization will change investing

Continue Reading

Technology

Judge finalizes remedies in Google antitrust case

Published

on

By

Judge finalizes remedies in Google antitrust case

The logo for Google LLC is seen at the Google Store Chelsea in Manhattan, New York City, U.S., November 17, 2021.

Andrew Kelly | Reuters

A U.S. judge on Friday finalized his decision for the consequences Google will face for its search monopoly ruling, adding new details to the decided remedies.

Last year, Google was found to hold an illegal monopoly in its core market of internet search, and in September, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled against the most severe consequences that were proposed by the Department of Justice.

That included the proposal of a forced sale of Google’s Chrome browser, which provides data that helps the company’s advertising business deliver targeted ads. Alphabet shares popped 8% in extended trading as investors celebrated what they viewed as minimal consequences from a historic defeat last year in the landmark antitrust case.

Investors largely shrugged off the ruling as non-impactful to Google. However some told CNBC it’s still a bite that could “sting.”

Mehta on Friday issued additional details for his ruling in new filings.

“The age-old saying ‘the devil is in the details’ may not have been devised with the drafting of an antitrust remedies judgment in mind, but it sure does fit,” Mehta wrote in one of the Friday filings.

Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The company has previously said it will appeal the remedies.

In August 2024, Mehta ruled that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act and held a monopoly in search and related advertising. The antitrust trial started in September 2023.

In his September decision, Mehta said the company would be able to make payments to preload products, but it could not have exclusive contracts that condition payments or licensing. Google was also ordered to loosen its hold on search data. Mehta in September also ruled that Google would have to make available certain search index data and user interaction data, though “not ads data.”

The DOJ had asked Google to stop the practice of “compelled syndication,” which refers to the practice of making certain deals with companies to ensure its search engine remains the default choice in browsers and smartphones.

The judge’s September ruling didn’t end the practice entirely — Mehta ruled out that Google couldn’t enter into exclusive deals, which was a win for the company. Google pays Apple billions of dollars per year to be the default search engine on iPhones. It’s lucrative for Apple and a valuable way for Google to get more search volume and users.

Mehta’s new details

In the Friday filings, Mehta wrote that Google cannot enter into any deal like the one it’s had with Apple “unless the agreement terminates no more than one year after the date it is entered.”

This includes deals involving generative artificial intelligence products, including any “application, software, service, feature, tool, functionality, or product” that involve or use genAI or large-language models, Mehta wrote.

GenAI “plays a significant role in these remedies,” Mehta wrote.

The judge also reiterated the web index data it will require Google to share with certain competitors. 

Google has to share some of the raw search interaction data it uses to train its ranking and AI systems, but it does not have to share the actual algorithms — just the data that feeds them.” In September, Mehta said those data sets represent a “small fraction” of Google’s overall traffic, but argued the company’s models are trained on data that contributed to Google’s edge over competitors.

The company must make this data available to qualified competitors at least twice, one of the Friday filing states. Google must share that data in a “syndication license” model whose term will be five years from the date the license is signed, the filing states.

Mehta on Friday also included requirements on the makeup of a technical committee that will determine the firms Google must share its data with.

Committee “members shall be experts in some combination of software engineering, information retrieval, artificial intelligence, economics, behavioral science, and data privacy and data security,” the filing states.

The judge went on to say that no committee member can have a conflict of interest, such as having worked for Google or any of its competitors in the six months prior to or one year after serving in the role.

Google is also required to appoint an internal compliance officer that will be responsible “for administering Google’s antitrust compliance program and helping to ensure compliance with this Final Judgment,” per one of the filings. The company must also appoint a senior business executive “whom Google shall make available to update the Court on Google’s compliance at regular status conferences or as otherwise ordered.”

This is breaking news. Check back for updates.

WATCH: Judge Issues final remedies in Google antitrust case

Judge Issues final remedies in Google antitrust case

Continue Reading

Technology

Amazon had a very big week that could shape where its stagnant stock goes next

Published

on

By

Amazon had a very big week that could shape where its stagnant stock goes next

Continue Reading

Trending