![Sam Bankman-Fried trial [Day 15] — latest update: Live coverage](https://images.cointelegraph.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,onerror=redirect,quality=90,width=1200/https://s3.cointelegraph.com/uploads/2023-10/8c987bc0-629b-4bdf-bdc1-a38e679df2f9.jpg)
Sam Bankman-Fried trial [Day 15] — latest update: Live coverage
More Videos
Published
1 year agoon
By
adminCointelegraph reporters are on the ground in New York bringing you live coverage of the trial of former FTX CEO Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried. As the saga unfolds, check below for the latest SBF updates.

Oct. 31: Trial heads toward closing remarks
Bankman-Fried resumed his testimony on Oct. 31, with prosecutor Danielle Sassoon of the Southern District of New York asking the former FTX CEO about whether he believed it was permissible to spend $8 billion in customer deposits.
“I thought it was folded into risk management,” he reportedly said. “As CEO of Alameda, I was concerned with their portfolio. At FTX, I was paying attention but not as much as I should have been.“
“You said it [regulations] was P.R. [public relations]?” Sassoon reportedly asked. Bankman-Fried responded: “I said something like that.”
Lead defense attorney Mark Cohen’s request to have Bankman-Fried acquitted was denied by Judge Lewis Kaplan, opening the door for closing arguments to be heard on Nov. 1. Neither the defense nor the prosecution intend to call any additional witnesses.
Oct. 30: ‘Fuck regulators,’ said SBF behind closed doors
Despite publicly supporting drafting crypto regulation to protect customers, disgraced crypto exchange FTX founder Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried appears to have shared a deep disdain for regulators.
During SBF’s ongoing criminal trial, Assistant U.S. Prosecutor Danielle Sassoon inquired if the crypto executive could recall his previous Twitter statements regarding his support of blockchain regulation to protect customers. “I don’t remember,” SBF said. Sassoon asked, “But in private, you said, fuck regulators, right?”
“I said that once,” SBF replied. Among other profanities, the former crypto executive also stated that he viewed a “subset of people” on Crypto Twitter as “dumb motherfuckers.” Before his arrest, SBF testified in a 2021 hearing before the U.S. House Financial Services Committee on crypto regulation.
“You said it [regulations] was P.R. [public relations]?” asked Sassoon. SBF responded, “I said something like that.”
During additional questioning, SBF also claimed that the benefits of helping draft crypto regulation included assisting in FTX taking market share from competitor exchange Binance. Before FTX’s collapse last November, SBF revealed that the exchange, along with sister hedge fund Alameda Research, held close to $15 billion in customers’ deposits, with $10 billion reported missing.
On Nov. 8, 2022, Binance founder Changpeng Zhao signed a letter of intent to acquire FTX. The deal fell apart just a day later after Binance reportedly viewed FTX’s books and discovered the asset discrepancy. SBF recalled that on Nov. 7, 2022, customer net withdrawals amounted to $4 billion, or 100 times the volume of an average trading day, sending the company into a deep liquidity crisis.
Oct. 27: Bankman-Fried faces jurors
Sam Bankman-Fried recognized that a “lot of people got hurt” due to FTX’s collapse but denied any wrongdoing in the exchange’s relationship with Alameda Research.
“I made a number of small mistakes and a number of big mistakes,” he told jurors in the first minutes of his testimony on Oct. 27. Jurors are listening to Bankman-Fried’s testimony for the first time. A hearing was held with him on Oct. 26 without the jurors present.
Compared with the previous day, Bankman-Fried appeared to be much better prepared for questions this morning. He delivered the jurors a narrative of FTX’s inception, its first months in business and its relationship with Alameda. According to him, Alameda was the primary market maker and liquidity provider of FTX, which meant it would be responsible for covering customer losses if FTX’s risk engine failed.
Due to Alameda’s role in FTX, it received customized features in FTX code, such as the ability to go negative without activating the risk engine. The exemption, according to him, was necessary to avoid Alameda’s potential liquidation, which would have an adverse impact on the crypto markets.
Bankman-Fried also noted that as a customer and liquidity provider for FTX, Alameda was able to borrow funds from the exchange if collateral was provided. As per FTX’s terms of use, borrowers would not have any restrictions on using borrowed funds, meaning Alameda could use the funds for trading purposes.
FTX’s former CEO also noted that Alameda handled wire transactions on behalf of FTX, acting as a payment processor for the platform.
In response to a question regarding whether he knew how FTX’s customer deposits on Alameda’s account were traced, he replied, “I wish I had a better understanding than I did.”
Bankman-Fried also pointed out that the exchange’s terms of use had a provision regarding the clawback of funds. According to the document, margin trading and futures would fall under the provision stating:
“Your account balance may be subject to claw back due to losses suffered by other users.”
The provision was intended to ensure that if FTX was unable to cover losses related to spot margin and futures, damages could be shared among all customers.
Overall, his testimony argued that the company’s relationship was protected by legal documents, though mistakes were made during the bull market’s speedy expansion. Bankman-Fried will continue to be examined by the defense, followed by a cross-examination by the prosecution.
Oct. 26: Prosecutors rest their case
Attendees of Sam Bankman-Fried’s trial on Oct. 26 had a disappointing morning as attorneys from both sides kept an endless cycle of repeated questions, sidebars and objections, prompting District Court Judge Kaplan to interrupt witness testimony and urge attorneys to move forward.
Prosecutors rested their case early this morning after FBI Agent Mark Troiano briefly testified as the last government witness. In his analysis, more than 300 Signal groups with Bankman-Fried were examined. Most of these groups had enabled the auto-delete feature, which deletes messages after a specified period.
Following a short break, the defense called as a witness Bahamas attorney Krystal Rolle, who represented Bankman-Fried and FTX in November 2022. Rolle said that she was part of a group that met with the Securities Commission of the Bahamas on Nov. 12 related to the collapse of FTX.
Although her testimony did not offer much new information, she shared with the jury that FTX transferred all digital assets held in its custody to the Bahamas regulator the same day a court order was issued.
Joseph Pimbley, a financial consultant with a Ph.D. in physics, was the second witness presented by the defense. His work on the case included an analysis of FTX’s code and database.
According to Pimbley’s findings, in November last year, FTX had over $5.8 billion in assets from accounts with spot margin, lending or futures trading enabled. The amount does not include balances of FTX entities or Alameda Research. During the cross-examination, prosecutors pointed out that the FTX database did not accurately reflect its bank accounts at that time.
Oct. 19: Former FTX legal counsel presents spreadsheet used to track $2.1 billion in loans to SBF, other execs
FTX’s former general counsel Can Sun was unaware of the exchange’s commingling of funds with Alameda Research, he told jurors on Oct. 19 as part of his testimony in Sam Bankman-Fried’s criminal trial.
Sun said he learned about Alameda’s exemption from the liquidation engine system from other employees in August 2022. Normally, the system would liquidate loss-making trades, but Alameda reportedly bypassed the mechanism due to its exception.
Upon learning about the problem, Sun allegedly worked on a plan to fix the issue. The plan would include a delay-liquidation mechanism to replace the non-exemption on Alameda’s account. According to the plan, the delayed mechanism would later be applied to other market makers on FTX, which also sought to notify customers and regulators about the issue. According to San, the plan was stalled by other FTX departments and was never implemented.
Furthermore, Sun acknowledged that he relied on Bankman-Fried’s statements about segregating customer funds to develop the company’s terms of service and answer regulators’ inquiries. FTX’s terms of services said that “none of the Digital Assets in your account are the property of, or shall or may be loaned to, FTX Trading” — in opposition to what was apparently happening between the sister companies. The same terms would apply to fiat assets, Sun noted in his testimony.
Additionally, the former FTX attorney disclosed a spreadsheet he used to trace loans made by Alameda to Bankman-Fried, Gary Wang, Ryan Salame and Nishad Singh. According to the spreadsheet, Alameda loaned them $2.1 billion across 35 loans.
These loans were used to fund other venture investments by FTX. While this process wasn’t the most transparent way of carrying out investments, it was a legal option at the time, Sun said.
According to prosecutors, the spreadsheet did not include millions of dollars transferred to Salame and Bankman-Fried. Sun said he was unaware of the additional transactions.
Sun traveled from Japan to testify in court as part of his non-prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice.
The trial of Bankman-Fried will resume on Oct. 26. The prosecution expects to rest its case on that date. The defense counsel has not yet confirmed whether a case will be brought.
Oct. 18: “Lawyers should do better than this” — Judge Kaplan
District Judge Lewis Kaplan ran out of patience during Sam Bankman-Fried’s trial on Oct. 18, calling out on lawyers representing both parties in the criminal court case. The judge’s comments came after a witness fleeing Texas for the trial testified for roughly 15 minutes.
Cory Gaddis, a policy specialist at Google, spent over three hours flying only to confirm that Google’s metadata indicates Caroline Ellison and Bankman-Fried owned a fabricated balance sheet of Alameda Research. According to Ellison’s testimony from last week, she developed seven alternative spreadsheets to mislead Alameda’s lenders about its financial health in 2022.
In cross-examination, Bankman-Fried’s defense counsel ended Gaddis’ testimony at the third question after realizing he wasn’t a technical expert.
“Lawyers should do better than this,” Judge Kaplan said, complaining about prosecutors and the defense counsel’s witness strategies.
For example, in the morning, former FTX lobbyist Eliora Kats took a short test just to confirm FTX had publicly advocated in Washington, D.C. for crypto regulation, which was already public knowledge, noted Judge Kaplan.
“These people [jurors] are giving up weeks of their lives, and I care about it,” he noted.
Prosecutors are expected to rest their case on Oct. 25. The defense counsel has not yet confirmed it hasa case.
Oct. 18: Forensic analysis of Alameda and FTX accounts
Accounting professor Peter Easton provided a breakdown of the alleged commingling of funds between FTX and Alameda Research since 2021. Easton is an accounting specialist working on forensic financial analysis and testified on Oct. 18 at the Southern District Court of New York as part of Bankman-Fried’s criminal trial.
According to Easton’s analysis, Alameda invested in Genesis Capital, K5 Global Holdings, Anthropic PBC, Dave Inc, Modulo Capital and other ventures, partially using funds from FTX customers. In June 2022, Alameda had a negative balance of $11.3 billion with FTX, while the companies’ liquid assets stood at $2.3 billion, meaning a gap of $9 billion between the sister firms.
Another critical point from the analysis: Alameda has 57 accounts with FTX that could have negative balances, whereas no other customer could do so. The analysis challenges Bankman-Fried’s defense argument that Alameda had similar privileges as other market makers on FTX.
Another finding of the analysis is that Alameda repaid $6.6 billion in loans to crypto lenders during the bear market in 2022. Of these funds, 68% ($4.5 billion) were traced as customer assets, while 32% ($2.1 billion) came from its own funds.
At least 35 properties in the Bahamas were purchased with customer funds totaling $228.5 million, according to Easton.
Oct. 13: BlockFi would not have filed for bankruptcy without the FTX debacle
The BlockFi team warned its leadership about the crypto lender’s over-exposure to FTX Token (FTT) in August 2021, according to evidence presented in court on Oct. 13 during Sam Bankman-Fried’s trial.
A credit memo prepared by BlockFi’s team in August 2021 recommended against a loan of 10,000 Bitcoin (BTC) to Alameda Research, worth nearly $470 million at the time.
Zac Prince, founder and former CEO of BlockFi, said the loan was denied, but Alameda increased its borrowings with BlockFi in the following months, reaching $1 billion in the second quarter of 2022. Prince testified that Alameda had always paid its loans on time until the collapse of FTX in November 2022, and that the loans had always been overcollateralized. He was unfamiliar with the fact that Alameda was paying the loans using funds from FTX customers.
One of the stress scenarios presented by BlockFi’s team in 2021 observed that if Alameda entered into default, with all lenders calling for repayment at the same time, the price of FTT would drop 60% to 75% in a day (or more).
Another stress evaluation during the same period noted that even in a scenario in which all collaterals decline 100%, FTX would still have a positive balance of $638 million in assets. The projections were made based on consolidated balance sheets presented by Alameda.
The connection between Alameda and BlockFi started at the end of 2021, when the first $15 million was lent to Alameda. Prince noted that Alameda went through due diligence processes across many departments on BlockFi, but the financial documents provided were unaudited.
Alameda was lent capital under open-term loans, which allowed borrowers such as BlockFi to call for repayment of funds at any time. In June 2022, following the collapse of the Terra ecosystem, BlockFi called back millions in loans owned by Alameda.
According to Prince, the loans were paid, and the companies deepened their relationship amid the bear market.
Seeking capital from investors during the same period, BlockFi entered into an agreement with FTX US that included $400 million in credit and a potential acquisition of BlockFi in July 2023, which never happened since both companies went bankrupt as a result of last November’s events.
Alameda offered FTT, SOL (SOL) and SRM as collateral for loans. According to Prince’s testimony, those tokens were held on BlockFi’s account on FTX. BlockFi also used FTX as a trading platform for its clients’ orders. At the time of FTX bankruptcy, the crypto lending platform had $650 million lent to Alameda and $350 million in funds available for trading.
Once it became clear that funds were impaired and loans wouldn’t be repaid, BlockFi filed for bankruptcy. Prince noted that despite the challenges of the bear market, BlockFi would not have filed for bankruptcy without the FTX debacle.
Oct. 12: Ellison’s testimony continues, with further focus on relationship with Sam Bankman-Fried
Caroline Ellison alleges #SBF utilized Thai sex worker IDs in a bid to unfreeze $1B in Alameda funds before resorting to bribery. pic.twitter.com/COPHbaECz6
— Cointelegraph (@Cointelegraph) October 12, 2023
The cross-examination of Caroline Ellison started in the Southern District Court of New York on Oct. 12, with the former CEO of Alameda Research discussing the decision-making process between Alameda and FTX, as well as how her romantic relationship with Bankman-Fried played a role in the events leading up to the exchange’s collapse.
The defense counsel first explored the capital lent to Alameda by crypto lenders Genesis and Voyager. According to Ellison’s testimony, funds borrowed by Alameda could be legally used for a range of purposes, including trading activities and covering the company’s operating expenses. The defense used her remarks to show that Alameda’s lenders knew the capital was being used for undefined purposes.
She also reported that communication with Bankman-Fried deteriorated after their last breakup in April 2022, with her avoiding meeting with the former partner one-on-one and preferring to communicate via Signal or group meetings instead. The communication challenges a her concerns about FTX venture investments made Ellison consider resigning as CEO of Alameda in early 2022.
In response to questions from Bankman-Fried’s defense attorney, Ellison acknowledged having held at least 20 meetings with prosecutors since December 2022 as part of her cooperation agreement, including a review of her answers on Oct. 9, one day prior to her testifying as a witness in the case. In December, before an agreement was in place with the U.S. government, she acknowledged the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched her house.
During the bear market, Ellison also created financial forecasts of how much money would be needed to hedge Alameda against market downturns, according to her testimony. She discovered that Alameda would have to sell billions of dollars in assets to have an appropriate hedge.
Additionally, Ellison discussed Alameda’s Northern Dimension bank account, which FTX used while it had difficulty opening its own. Later on, around the end of 2021 and the beginning of 2022, FTX was able to get its account and began redirecting users’ funds. However, legacy customers still sent funds to Northern Dimension’s account. As evidence, the defense pointed to one of her meetings with prosecutors in December 2022, in which she suggested that Bankman-Fried was unaware that FTX customers’ funds were still being sent to Alameda.
Oct. 11: Caroline Ellison details the final months of FTX
On her second day of testimony at the trial of Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried trial on Oct. 11, Caroline Ellison provided more information about the months leading up to the FTX debacle in November 2022. Lenders required Alameda Research to repay millions in loans in mid-June following the market downturn in May, according to Ellison. “I was very stressed out,” she said.
Genesis Capital was one of these lenders, recalling $500 million in loans, according to screenshots taken from conversations between Ellison, Bankman-Fried and Genesis employees via Telegram.
At the time, Alameda had over $13 billion of debt on its credit line with FTX, while its open-term loans exceeded $1.3 billion. As per Ellison’s testimony, Bankman-Fried instructed her to devise “alternative ways” to disclose Alameda’s financial information to lenders, specifically Genesis.
According to Ellison, Genesis could recall all loans to Alameda if it were aware of Alameda’s true financial status, as well as damage its reputation. “I didn’t want Genesis to know that,” she stated about Alameda’s multibillion-dollar liability toward FTX.
As per prosecutors’ evidence, Ellison worked on at least seven alternative spreadsheets for Genesis. A spreadsheet sent by Alameda to Genesis in June listed $10.3 billion in total liabilities, whereas the actual amount was approximately $15 billion at the time.
Bankman-Fried’s plans to survive the storm included raising capital from Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. According to evidence presented in court, Ellison made a list of “things Sam is freaking out about” months before the exchange collapsed.
The list featured raising capital from “the MBS,” borrowing more capital from BlockFi, which had already lent Alameda over $660 million, as well as “getting regulators to crack down on Binance,” in an effort by Bankman-Fried to expand FTX’s market share, Ellison said.
She also mentioned a $150 million bribe that FTX allegedly paid to a Chinese official in 2021 to release funds frozen there as part of an investigation into money laundering. The alleged bribe is not included in the trial.
Oct. 10: Gary Wang is cross-examined, star witness Ellison enters
The fourth day of the trial began with Gary Wang concluding his testimony. He was cross-examined by one of SBF’s lawyers, Christian Everdell.
During the cross-examination, Wang was asked about Bankman-Fried’s intention to shut down Alameda, to which Wang responded that SBF thought there was a “30% chance” it should be shut down. He also said he wasn’t sure whether the tweet by Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao or leaked financials caused the FTX bank run.
After Wang was dismissed by Judge Lewis Kaplan, Ellison, the former CEO of Alameda and an ex-girlfriend of Bankman-Fried, was called to the witness stand.
In the opening questions, Ellison was asked why she was guilty of the crimes for which she was accused and responded that “Alameda took several billions of dollars from FTX customers and used it for investments.”
She reportedly placed the entire blame for the misuse of FTX user funds on Bankman-Fried. Ellison claimed he “set up the systems” that allowed Alameda to take $14 billion from the exchange.
Ellison also revealed personal information about her relationship with the defendant, including his aspirations to be U.S. president and that he considered paying former U.S. President Donald Trump not to run for reelection.
Additionally, she testified on the firm buying back FTX Tokens (FTT) from Binance or else “Binance would cause trouble,” along with using loans from Genesis in 2021 as a funding source.
“Alameda took several billions of dollars from FTX customers and used it for investments,” said Ellison, according to reports. “I sent balance sheets that made Alameda look less risky than it was.”
Ellison admitted to not feeling qualified for the CEO role at Alameda, though she was encouraged by SBF, and said she took a $3.5 million loan from the firm “for a gambling company people at FTX wanted to put in my name” and for political contributions.
Oct. 6 Gary Wang’s testimony continues admits to “special privileges” given to FTX on Alameda
The trial continued for the fourth day on Friday, Oct. 6, with a shorter session ending at 2:00 pm Eastern Time because jurors opted not to take a lunch break.
Wang, the former chief technology officer of FTX, continued to testify after a brief stint the previous afternoon. On this day, Wang testified that the back-end code and the database for FTX.com kept track of many coins a user had and the availability of a feature called “allow negative.”
According to Inner City Press, the prosecutor asked Wang what would happen if that feature was checked to which Wang said, “Then you are allowed to go beyond. “
He then said that Alameda’s account was allowed this special privilege and could, therefore, “trade more than it had in its account. They had a large line of credit. And it could trade faster than others.”
“It withdrew more than it had in its account, like $8 billion in fiat and crypto,” Wang said. When asked where the money came from, he said, “from FTX customers.”
According to Wang’s testimony, he overheard Bankman-Fried saying Alameda could withdraw up to $50–$100 million from FTX. He said that after a 2020 database query, he saw Alameda’s balance was negative to an amount greater than the revenue of FTX itself.
Wang pleaded guilty to four charges in December 2022, one of which was wire fraud. Like Ellison, Wang has agreed to cooperate with officials via a plea deal that could see him avoid up to 50 years in prison.
Oct. 5: Wang details relationship between FTX and Alameda Research
In over four hours of testimony, Wang provided in-depth details about the relationship between the companies and how the crypto empire ended up with an $8 billion hole in customer assets.
According to Wang, a few months after FTX’s inception, in 2019, Alameda received special privileges from FTX. Prosecutors used screenshots of FTX’s database and code available on GitHub to show that Alameda was allowed to have an unlimited negative balance at FTX, a special line of credit of $65 billion in 2022 and an exemption from the liquidation engine.
The commingling of funds and problems between companies evolved over time. In 2020, Bankman-Fried instructed Wang that Alameda’s negative balance should not exceed FTX’s revenue — a rule that changed over the years, according to Wang’s testimony. In late 2021, for example, Alameda’s liability to FTX stood at $3 billion, up from $300 million in 2020.
“I trusted his judgment,” Wang said when asked why he agreed to Alameda’s privileges.
However, these alleged privileges were part of Alameda’s role as a primary market maker for FTX, the defense argued later during Wang’s testimony. The defense counsel also noted that other market makers had similar privileges at FTX, and being able to go negative was a key feature of any market maker.
Another point emphasized by prosecutors was the MobileCoin exploit in 2021. Bankman-Fried allegedly told Wang and Ellison to add the multimillion-dollar deficit to Alameda’s balance sheet instead of keeping it on FTX to hide the loss from FTX investors.
Months before FTX’s collapse, Bankman-Fried, Wang and former engineering director Nishad Singh discussed shutting down Alameda and replacing its role with other market makers. The company’s liabilities, however, were too high at the time, sitting at $14 billion. Alameda remained in operation until November 2022.
Wang’s testimony will continue on Oct. 10, the same day Ellison’s will be heard.
Oct. 5: Yedidia cross-examination, witness testimonies in focus
Day 3 of the #SBF trial, we’re here bright and early! ☀️ pic.twitter.com/PQ1rQV38Px
— Cointelegraph (@Cointelegraph) October 5, 2023
A liability of $8 billion from Alameda to FTX was at the center of prosecutors’ cross-examination of Adam Yedidia on Oct. 5. Yedidia is a close friend of Bankman-Fried and was a developer at FTX. He was also one of ten people to live in Bankman-Fried’s $35 million luxury resort in the Bahamas.
According to Yedidia’s testimony, since early 2021, FTX used an Alameda account labeled North Dimension to deposit users’ funds while facing difficulties opening its own bank account. Funds would be considered Alameda’s liability toward FTX, which reached $8 billion in June 2022.
While Yedidia was aware of the funds sent to Alameda’s account, he didn’t see it as a concern when he first heard about it in 2021. However, after learning about the liability amount in 2022, he voiced his concerns to Bankman-Fried during a tennis game. According to Yedidia, Bankman-Fried said the debt should be settled between the companies within six months to three years.

“I trusted Sam, Caroline, and others in Alameda to handle the situation,” he said, answering questions from prosecutors. Upon learning that Alameda was not only holding the funds but using them to pay its debtors, Yedidia resigned in November 2022.
While prosecutors used the case to illustrate how the companies were commingling funds, Bankman-Fried’s defense counsel sought to share a broader picture of FTX and Alameda’s relationship with the jury.
The defense highlighted that FTX was growing fast, with its leadership working over 10 hours a day during the 2021 bull market, including Bankman-Fried, who oversaw several parts of the company at the time.
The defense counsel also pointed out that Yedidia had been under several inquiries from prosecutors under an immunity order, meaning cooperation with prosecutors would protect him from facing any charges regarding his role at FTX.
Also, according to Bankman-Fried’s defense, FTX’s difficulties opening a bank account and its reliance on Alameda’s North Dimension to deposit funds were well known. Yedidia’s cross-examination will resume this afternoon in the federal courtroom in lower Manhattan.
Two witnesses testified during the second part of the Bankman-Fried trial on Oct. 5: Matthew Huang, co-founder of Paradigm and Wang, co-founder of FTX and Alameda Research.
Paradigm invested a total of $278 million in FTX in two funding rounds between 2021 and 2022. According to Huang, the venture capital firm was not aware of the commingling of funds between FTX and Alameda, nor of the privileges that Alameda had with the crypto exchange.
Such privileges included Alameda’s exemption from FTX’s liquidation engine (a tool that closes positions at risk of liquidation). With the exemption, Alameda was able to leverage its position and maintain a negative balance with FTX.
The Paradigm co-founder also acknowledged that the firm did not conduct deeper due diligence on FTX, instead relying on information provided by Bankman-Fried.
Another concern for Paradigm was FTX not having a board of directors. According to Huang, Bankman-Fried was “very resistant” to the idea of having investors on FTX’s board of directors but promised to build one and appoint experienced executives to serve on it.
During his brief testimony, Wang acknowledged that he, along with Bankman-fried and Ellison, had committed wire fraud, securities fraud and commodities fraud.
Wang also noted that Alameda had special privileges with FTX, such as the ability to withdraw unlimited funds from the exchange, as well as a line of credit of $65 billion. To illustrate these privileges, Wang pointed out that any other market maker would have a credit line in the millions, while Alameda had a credit line in the billions.
A loan of approximately $200 million to $300 million from Alameda was also mentioned by Wang, allegedly as part of the purchase of other crypto firms. However, the loans were never credited to his account. His testimony will continue on Oct. 6.
Oct. 4: DOJ and Bankman-Fried’s defense state their arguments
The first hours of SBF’s trial have offered a glimpse of the arguments the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the former FTX CEO’s defense will bring to court in the coming weeks.
After a jury selection in the morning, both parties gave opening statements to the 12-person jury present in the court.
The DOJ took a tough stance against Bankman-Fried in its first statement, portraying the FTX founder as someone who deliberately lied to investors to enrich himself and expand his crypto empire.
According to the DOJ, Bankman-Fried lied to FTX customers and investors, using Alameda as a key partner to “steal customers’ funds,” a phrase that was frequently used during the opening statements.

As per the trial preview, the DOJ will focus its arguments on allegations that Bankman-Fried misled customers, investors and lenders regarding the safety of their funds while using Alameda to steal their money and influence politicians in Washington.
The defense, meanwhile, brought arguments about Bankman-Fried being a young entrepreneur who made business decisions that “didn’t work out.” The defense denied the existence of secret transactions between Alameda and FTX or a backdoor used to steal customer funds. According to the previous arguments presented, all transactions were legitimate or made in good faith by Bankman-Fried during the crypto market downturn and the subsequent collapse of FTX in November 2022.
The defense also highlighted the role of Binance in the bank run that led to FTX’s collapse. Testimonies will continue throughout the day.
According to the defense, Bankman-Fried assumed FTX was allowed to loan funds to Alameda as part of a business relationship with the market maker, and there was no secret door for transactions between the companies.
Prosecutors also noted that Ellison, Wang and Singh would offer the jury insider details about Bankman-Fried’s role in FTX’s operations and alleged crimes. However, the defense pointed out that as part of the cooperation agreement with the government, they were supposed to give testimony against Bankman-Fried, raising doubts about their credibility.
The defense also downplayed the accusations against the nature of the relationship between FTX and Alameda, arguing that FTX margin traders were aware of the risks associated with transactions.
“There was no theft,” the defense claimed. “It’s not a crime to be the CEO of a company that files for bankruptcy.”
In the second half of the first day of the trial, the jury heard from two witnesses: Mark Julliard, a French trader and former client of FTX, and Adam Yedidia, a friend of Sam Bankman-Fried and former employee at Alameda Research and FTX.
In his testimony, Julliard said he had four Bitcoin (BTC) held at FTX at the time of the exchange’s collapse, worth nearly $100,000. He admitted that FTX and Bankman-Fried’s marketing efforts, as well as the notable venture capital companies backing FTX, gave him the confidence to use the exchange for crypto trading. He assumed that venture capital firms had done due diligence on FTX and its leadership.
During the questioning, prosecutors emphasized that the trader used FTX exclusively for spot trading and was unaware that the exchange used client funds for crypto trading with Alameda Research.
Questions for Yedidia were focused on his educational background at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he first met Bankman-Fried and had two professional experiences with the FTX founder. Yedidia worked at Alameda briefly in 2017 as a trader and then returned to work for FTX in 2021 as a developer. He was among 10 people living in the Bahamas on FTX’s $30 million real estate.
In Yedidia’s testimony, prosecutors used former FTX ads as evidence that the company was always positioning itself as a safe, trusted and easy way to invest in cryptocurrency, including marketing campaigns with NFL player Tom Brady and comedian Larry David. The trial will resume Oct. 5.
Oct. 3: SBF trial begins

The trial of Bankman-Fried began on Oct. 3 with jury selection. Bankman-Fried is charged with seven counts of conspiracy and fraud in connection with the collapse of FTX, the cryptocurrency exchange he co-founded. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges. The case is being heard by Judge Lewis Kaplan, who has presided over a long list of other high-profile cases, including ones involving detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the Gambino crime family, Prince Andrew and Donald Trump.
Bankman-Fried was ordered to be jailed on Aug. 11 after Kaplan found that his sharing of former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison’s personal papers amounted to witness intimidation. Alameda Research was a trading house also founded by Bankman-Fried. Previously, he had been under house arrest in his parents’ home in Stanford, California, on a $250-million bond.
December: SBF arrested
Bankman-Fried was arrested in the United States on his arrival from the Bahamas on Dec. 21, 2022. He had been arrested in the Bahamas on Dec. 12 after the U.S. government formally notified the country of charges the U.S. was filing against him. He declared his intention to fight extradition from the Caribbean nation but changed his mind after a week in Bahaman jail and consented to extradition.
Meanwhile, FTX co-founder Gary Wang and Alameda Research CEO (and reportedly sometime SBF girlfriend) Ellison agreed to plead guilty in the burgeoning case.
November: FTX collapses
Bankman-Fried’s troubles began when reports emerged on Nov. 2 that Alameda Research had a large holding of FTX Token (FTT), FTX’s utility token. That revelation led to questions about the relationship between the two entities. On Nov. 6, Changpeng Zhao, CEO of rival exchange Binance, announced that his exchange would liquidate its FTT holdings, which were estimated to be worth $2.1 billion. Zhao turned down an offer tweeted by Ellison to buy Binance’s FTT.
A run began on FTX. Bankman-Fried gave reassurances on Twitter (now X) that the exchange’s “assets are fine” and accused “a competitor” of spreading rumors. By Nov. 8, the price of FTT had fallen from $22 to $15.40.
It’s only been one week since SBF’s notorious “FTX is fine. Assets are fine.” pic.twitter.com/zKoILqquHF
— Robert Smith (@BondHack) November 14, 2022
Also on Nov. 8, Bankman-Fried announced on Twitter that he had come to an agreement with Zhao “on a strategic transaction.” He wrote, “Our teams are working on clearing out the withdrawal backlog as is. This will clear out liquidity crunches; all assets will be covered 1:1.”
On Nov. 9, Zhao announced that Binance would not pursue the acquisition of FTX after due diligence and more reports of mishandled funds. The price of Bitcoin (BTC) plummeted to $15,600. The FTX and Alameda Research websites went dark for a few hours. When the FTX website came back, it bore a warning against making deposits and was unable to process withdrawals.
On Nov. 10, Bankman-Fried posted a 22-part Twitter thread that began with “I’m sorry.” It was the first of a long string of public statements he made about the exchange’s fall. The following day, the entire staff of Alameda Research quit, and FTX, FTX US and Alameda Research filed for bankruptcy in the United States. Bankman-Fried resigned as FTX CEO and was replaced by John J. Ray III, who was best known for his role in the Enron bankruptcy.
SBF and FTX before the fall
At the beginning of 2022, FTX had a $32-billion valuation and was thought to be in enviable financial condition. Bankman-Fried was seen as a respected business leader by much of the crypto community and the world at large. He was photographed with political leaders and spoke at congressional hearings.
Maxine Waters is chairing the investigation into FTX https://t.co/oFMctH4rRh pic.twitter.com/Ox6O5w4nOl
— Jordan Schachtel @ dossier.today (@JordanSchachtel) November 17, 2022
He had gained a reputation as a philanthropist, pursuing a philosophy popular among academics known as “effective altruism.” Part of his implementation of that philosophy was political activism in the form of financial support for candidates.
As the crypto winter set in, Bankman-Fried spoke of FTX and Alameda Research’s “responsibility to seriously consider stepping in, even if it is at a loss to ourselves, to stem contagion.” The companies made a bid for Voyager Digital that was rebuffed.
FTX made a deal with Visa to introduce its own debit card in 40 countries.
Bankman-Fried, Ellison and other alumni of Jane Street Capital founded Alameda Research in 2017. Bankman-Fried went on to found FTX with Wang in 2019. Zhao was an early investor in the exchange.
This is a developing story, and further information will be added as it becomes available.
You may like
Politics
‘We will see closures’: The industries hit the hardest by national insurance hike
Published
2 hours agoon
April 5, 2025By
admin
The cost of having staff is going up this Sunday as the increase in employers’ national insurance kicks in.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced in the October budget employers will have to pay a 15% rate of national insurance contributions (NIC) on their employees from 6 April – up from 13.8%.
She also lowered the threshold at which employers pay NIC from £9,100 a year to £5,000 a year, meaning they start paying at an earlier point on staff salaries.
This is on top of the national minimum wage rising, the business relief rate for hospitality, retail and leisure reducing from 75% to 40% and the rising cost of ingredients and services.
Sky News spoke to people working in some of the industries that will be hardest hit by the rise in NIC: Nurseries, hospitality, retail, small businesses and care.
NURSERIES
Nearly all (96% of 728) nurseries surveyed by the National Day Nurseries Association (NDNA) said they will have no choice but to put up fees because of the NIC rise, leaving parents to pick up the shortfall.
More on Cost Of Living
Related Topics:
The NDNA has warned nurseries could close due to the rise, with 14% saying their business is at risk, 69% reducing spending on resources and 39% considering offering fewer places with government-funded hours as 92% said they do not cover their costs.
Sarah has two children, with her youngest starting later this month, but they were just informed fees will now be £92 a day – compared with £59 at the same nursery when her eldest started five years ago.
“I’m not sure how we will afford this. Our salaries haven’t increased by 50% during this time,” she said.
“We’re stuck as there aren’t enough nursery spaces in our area, so we will have to struggle.”
Karen Richards, director of the Wolds Childcare group in Nottinghamshire, has started a petition to get the government to exempt private nurseries – the majority of providers – from the NIC changes as she said it is unfair nurseries in schools do not have to pay the NIC.
She told Sky News she will have to find about £183,000 next year to cover the increase across her five nurseries and reducing staff numbers is “not off the table” but it is more likely they will reduce the number of children they have.

Joeli Brearley, founder of Pregnant Then Screwed, said parents are yet again having to pay the price for the government’s actions. Pic: Pregnant Then Screwed
Joeli Brearley, founder of the Pregnant Then Screwed campaign group, told Sky News: “Parents are already drowning in childcare costs, and now, thanks to the national insurance hike, nurseries are passing even more fees on to families who simply can’t afford it.
“It’s the same story every time – parents pay the price while the government looks the other way. How exactly are we meant to ‘boost the economy’ when we can’t even afford to go to work?”
Purnima Tanuku, executive chair of the NDNA, said staffing costs make up about 75% of nurseries’ costs and they will have to find £2,600 more per employee to pay for the NIC rise – £47,000 for an average nursery.
“The government says it wants to offer ‘cheaper childcare’ for parents on the one hand but then with the other expects nurseries to absorb the costs of National Insurance Contributions themselves,” she told Sky News.
“High-quality early education and care gives children the best start in life and enables parents to work. The government must invest in this vital infrastructure to make sure nurseries can continue to deliver this social and economic good.”
HOSPITALITY
The hospitality industry has warned of closures, price rises, lack of growth and shorter opening hours.
Dan Brod, co-owner of The Beckford Group, a small southwest England restaurant and country pub/hotel group, said the economic situation now is “much worse” than during COVID.
The group has put plans for two more projects on hold and Mr Brod said the only option is to put up prices, but with the rising supplier costs, wages, business rates and NIC hike they will “stay still” financially.
Read more:
Reeves admits it won’t be easy for businesses to absorb NI hike
UK businesses issue warning over ‘deeply troubling’ Trump tariffs

Dan Brod, co-owner of The Beckford Group, said the government does not value hospitality as an industry. Pic: The Beckford Group
He told Sky News: “What we’re nervous about is we’re still in the cost of living crisis and even though our places are in very wealthy areas of the country, Wiltshire, Somerset and Bath, people are feeling the situation in their pockets, people are going out less.”
Mr Brod said they are not getting rid of any staff as their business strongly depends on the quality of their hospitality so they are having to make savings elsewhere.
“I’m still optimistic, I still feel that humans need hospitality but we’re not valued as an industry and the social benefit is never taken into account by government.”

Chef/owner Aktar Islam, who runs Opheem in Birmingham, said the rise will cost him up to £120,000 more this year. Pic: Opheem
Aktar Islam, owner/chef at two Michelin-starred Opheem in Birmingham, said the NIC rise will cost him up to £120,000 more in staff costs a year and to maintain the financial position he is in now they would have to make “another million pounds”.
He got emails from eight suppliers on Thursday saying they were raising their costs, and said he will have to raise prices but is concerned about the impact on diners.
The restaurateur hires four commis chefs to train each year but will not be able to this year, or the next few.
“It’s very short-sighted of the government, you’re not going to grow the economy by taxing hospitality out of existence, these sort of businesses are the lifeblood of our economy,” he said.
“They think if a hospitality business closes another will open but people know it’s tough, why would they want to do that? It’s not going to happen.”
The chef sent hundreds of his “at home” kits to fellow chefs this week for their staff as an acknowledgement of how much of a “s*** show” the situation is – “a little hug from us”.
RETAIL
Some of the UK’s biggest retailers, including Tesco, Boots, Marks & Spencer and Next, wrote to Rachel Reeves after the budget to say the NIC hike would lead to higher consumer prices, smaller pay rises, job cuts and store closures.
The British Retail Consortium (BRC), representing more than 200 major retailers and brands, said the costs are so significant neither small or large retailers will be able to absorb them.
Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England, told the Treasury committee in November that job losses due to the NIC changes were likely to be higher than the 50,000 forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

Big retailers have warned the NIC rise will lead to higher prices, job cuts and store closures. File pic: PA
Nick Stowe, chief executive of Monsoon and Accessorize, said retailers had the choice of protecting staff numbers or cancelling investment plans.
He said they were trying to protect staff numbers and would be increasing prices but they would likely have to halt plans to increase store numbers.
Helen Dickinson, head of the BRC, told Sky News the national living wage rise and NIC increase will cost businesses £5bn, adding more than 10% to the cost of hiring someone in an entry-level role.
A further tax on packaging coming in October means retailers will face £7bn in extra costs this year, she said.
“This huge cost burden will undoubtedly reduce investment in stores and jobs and is likely to lead to higher prices,” she added.
SMALL BUSINESSES
A massive 85% of 1,400 small business owners surveyed by the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) in March reported rising costs compared with the same time last year, with 47% citing tax as the main barrier to growth – the highest level in more than a decade.
Just 8% of those businesses saw an increase in staff numbers over the last quarter, while 21% had to reduce their workforce.
Kate Rumsey, whose family has run Rumsey’s Chocolates in Wendover, Buckinghamshire and Thame, Oxfordshire, for 21 years, said the NIC rise, minimum wage increase and business relief rate reduction will push her staff costs up by 15 to 17% – £70,000 to £80,000 annually.
To offset those costs, she has had to reduce opening hours, including closing on Sundays and bank holidays in one shop for the first time ever, make one person redundant, not replace short-term staff and introduce a hiring freeze.
The soaring price of cocoa has added to her woes and she has had to increase prices by about 10% and will raise them further.

Kate Rumsey, who runs Rumsey’s Chocolates in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, said they are being forced to take a short-term view to survive. Pic: Rumsey’s Chocolates
She told Sky News: “We’re very much taking more of a short-term view at the moment, it’s so seasonal in this business so I said to the team we’ll just get through Q1 then re-evaluate.
“I feel this is a bit about the survival of the fittest and many businesses won’t survive.”
Tina McKenzie, policy chair of the FSB, said the NIC rise “holds back growth” and has seen small business confidence drop to its lowest point since the first year of the pandemic.
With the “highest tax burden for 70 years”, she called on the chancellor to introduce a “raft of pro-small business measures” in the autumn budget so it can deliver on its pledge for growth.
She reminded employers they can claim the Employment Allowance, which has doubled after an FSB campaign to take the first £10,500 off an employer’s annual bill.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:46
National Insurance rise impacts carers
CARE
The care sector has been warning the government since the October that budget care homes will be forced to close due to the financial pressures the employers’ national insurance rise will place on them.
Care homes receive funding from councils as well as from private fees, but as local authorities feel the squeeze more and more their contributions are not keeping up with rising costs.
The industry has argued without it the NHS would be crippled.
Raj Sehgal, founding director of ArmsCare, a family-run group of six care homes in Norfolk, said the NIC increase means a £360,000 annual impact on the group’s £3.6m payroll.
In an attempt to offset those costs, the group is scrapping staff bonuses and freezing management salaries.
It is also considering reducing day hours, where there are more staff on, so the fewer numbers of night staff work longer hours and with no paid break.

Raj Sehgal said his family-owned group of care homes will need £360,000 extra this year for the NIC hike
Mr Sehgal said: “But what that does do unfortunately, is impact the quality you’re going to be able to provide, at a time when we need to be improving quality, but something has to give.
“The government just doesn’t seem to understand that the funding needs to be there. You cannot keep enforcing higher costs on businesses and not be able to fund those without actually finding the money from somewhere.”
He said the issue is exacerbated by the fact local authority funding, despite increasing to 5%, will not cover the 10% rise.
“It’s going to be a really, really tough ride. And we are going to see a number of providers close their doors,” he warned.
Nadra Ahmed, executive co-chair of the National Care Association, said those who receive, or are waiting to access, care as well as staff will feel the impact the hardest.
“As providers see further shortfalls in the commissioning of care services, they will start to limit what they can do to ensure their viability or, as a last resort exit the market,” she said.
“This is very short-sighted, with serious consequences, which alludes to the understanding of this government.”
Government decided to ‘wipe the slate clean’
A Treasury spokesperson told Sky News the government is “pro-business” but has “taken the difficult but necessary decisions to wipe the slate clean and properly fund our public services after years of declines”.
“Our budget choices have already delivered an NHS with falling waiting lists, a £3.7bn rescue package for social care, and vital protection for Britain’s small businesses,” they said.
“We’re making tough choices today to secure a better tomorrow through our Plan for Change. By investing in economic growth and early years education while capping corporation tax, we’re putting more money in working people’s pockets and giving every child the best start in life.”
Politics
Highs and lows of Five-Year Keir: The PM’s journey from Doughty Street to Downing Street
Published
2 hours agoon
April 5, 2025By
admin
From Doughty Street to Downing Street: from human rights barrister in a left-wing chambers to a prime minister tough on rioters and illegal migrants.
Five years after becoming Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer has been on a remarkable journey. He turned left to win the party leadership and turned right to win a general election.
It has been five years of dramatic highs and lows: the elation of winning a landslide general election victory after the gloom of contemplating quitting following a by-election humiliation.
As opposition leader, Sir Keir purged the Labour left, including banishing his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn to the political wilderness, and flushed out the scourge of antisemitism.
As prime minister, within weeks of entering Number 10 he was confronted with riots on Britain’s streets. And throughout his premiership he has had to play a leading role internationally in a volatile and war-torn world.

Sir Keir has sought to distance himself from Jeremy Corbyn.
Pic: Reuters
At home, his government’s economic policies have been condemned by political opponents and some of his own MPs as a return to austerity. Labour’s opinion poll ratings have nose-dived.
Abroad, as well as the challenge of defending Ukraine against the brutality of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, the so-called “special relationship” with the United States has been tested to the limit by the erratic Donald Trump.
More from Politics
Five-year Keir was elected Labour leader on 4 April 2020, just weeks after prime minister Boris Johnson ordered a COVID lockdown that was ultimately to bring about his demise.
Sir Keir won 56% of the vote, defeating the Corbyn-backed left-wing candidate Rebecca Long-Bailey and Lisa Nandy from Labour’s soft left.
To win the backing of left-wing Labour activists, he backed a wealth tax on the top 5% of earners, abolishing university tuition fees, nationalising water and energy and restoring freedom of movement between the UK and EU countries. Whatever happened to those promises?
There was also a showbiz connection. When he was running for the leadership, a rumour persisted that he was the inspiration for Mark Darcy, the dashing human rights lawyer played by Colin Firth in the Bridget Jones movies.
But, alas for Sir Keir and his spin doctors, who did nothing to dispel the myth, several months after he became leader the Bridget Jones author Helen Fielding laid the rumour to rest – though she conceded they were very similar.

Bridget Jones author Helen Fielding said lawyer Mark Darcy is not based on Keir Starmer – but that the two have similarities. Pic: PA
Sir Keir had much bigger battles to fight, however. From day one as leader, he condemned antisemitism as “a stain on our party”. Within weeks he sacked his rival Ms Long-Bailey from his shadow cabinet in a dispute over antisemitism.
But in his ruthless determination to show the party had changed under his leadership, he had a bigger target: his predecessor Mr Corbyn, still the darling of left-wing Labour activists.
After the former leader claimed the scale of antisemitism in the Labour party had been “dramatically overstated for political reasons”, Sir Keir struck, suspending him for refusing to retract his comments and then finally expelling him a month before last year’s general election.
But while he was winning that battle, Sir Keir’s first year did not go well at the ballot box. In 2021, in the first by-election after Boris Johnson’s 80-seat victory in the 2019 general election, Labour lost the previously safe seat of Hartlepool to the Conservatives. The swing against Labour was a huge 16%.
It was his lowest low point of the last five years. Stunned by the Hartlepool defeat, Sir Keir panicked, sacking his chief whip Nick Brown and attempting to demote his deputy, Angela Rayner, stripping her of her posts as party chair and campaign coordinator.
But it backfired as she fought back and emerged stronger than ever. She gained the titles of shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and shadow secretary of state for work. Four years later, her Employment Rights Bill is in the House of Lords and on course to become law.

Sir Keir tried to demote Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner after the party lost the Hartlepool by-election. Pic: PA
Last year, in a Sky News interview with political editor Beth Rigby, Sir Keir admitted he had considered quitting. “I did, because I didn’t feel that I should be bigger than the party and that if I couldn’t bring about the change, perhaps there should be a change,” he said.
But it wasn’t just the result in Hartlepool that was damaging. In 2022, in a scandal the Conservatives called “beergate”, he and Ms Rayner were accused of breaching lockdown rules by eating curry and drinking beer in Durham while campaigning in the by-election.
He was cleared, but at the height of the Tory onslaught he said he would resign if he was issued with a fixed penalty notice. It was another low point. But in 2022 it was Mr Johnson who was forced to quit over breaking COVID rules, not Sir Keir.
A top civil servant, Sue Gray, produced a damning and ultimately fatal “partygate” report, accusing Mr Johnson of lying to parliament, Liz Truss came and went – her brief 49-day tenure likened to the life of a lettuce – and Rishi Sunak became the Tories’ fifth prime minister in six years.
Sir Keir was on his way. But it was his turn to stun his opponents in 2023 when he announced that Sue Gray was to become his chief of staff, in a move the Tories claimed was treachery and proof that she had been biased against Mr Johnson.

After producing her partygate report into COVID lockdown parties, Sue Gray went on to become Sir Keir’s chief of staff.
Pic: Rex/Tayfun Salci/ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock
But though she lasted longer than “lettuce” Liz Truss, Sue Gray didn’t survive for long. Within months of Labour’s 2024 election victory she was out, the victim of a vicious power struggle with a Number 10 “boys’ club” led by Starmer’s campaign chief Morgan McSweeney, who helped himself to her job as chief of staff.
On the back of several by-election successes and sweeping local government gains, when Mr Sunak shocked his own party on 22 May by announcing a 4 July general election, Labour entered the campaign as overwhelming favourites to win a big majority.
A turning point in the campaign came on 2 June when Nigel Farage announced a comeback as Reform UK leader and declared that he would, after months of keeping his opponents guessing, be a candidate after all.
As a result, Reform UK won 4.1m votes, piling up votes in the tens of thousands in hundreds of seats, mostly at the expense of the Conservatives, and handing a landslide to Sir Keir: 411 Labour MPs and a majority of 172.
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈
His triumph came close to rivalling Tony Blair’s landslides of 1997 and 2001 with one crucial difference: Labour polled just 34% of the vote, the lowest share for a party winning a majority.
During the campaign, Sir Keir faced tough scrutiny not just about his pledges not to increase income tax, VAT or national insurance, but also about his character and personality.
In “The Battle for Number 10” on Sky News, a 90-minute event in Grimsby featuring Sir Keir and Mr Sunak, the Labour leader froze when a member of the audience told him he seemed like a “political robot”.

Sir Keir Starmer faced audience questions during a Sky News election event with Sky’s political editor Beth Rigby, in Grimsby.
Pic: PA
He also squirmed when another audience member challenged him on why he now condemned Mr Corbyn when five years earlier he told voters he would make a great prime minister.
Yet despite those difficult moments, the event was more bruising for Mr Sunak than Sir Keir and a YouGov poll declared a decisive victory for the Labour leader, by 64% to 36%
But there was to be no honeymoon period for Sir Keir after Labour’s landslide. Within days of his election victory, riots following the killing of three young girls at a dance class in Southport presented the new prime minister with a law and order crisis.
His background as Director of Public Prosecutions served him well, however, and he showed a steely determination in ensuring rioters were dealt with swiftly and severely by the courts, though critics hit out at inconsistencies in sentencing and branded him “Two-tier Keir”.
Another crisis was self-inflicted. Many in his own party were shocked by the staggering amount of freebies, gifts and hospitality he and his wife accepted since he became Labour leader, many paid for by a millionaire Labour donor Lord Alli. According to a Sky News investigation, their total worth was more than £100,000.

Lord Waheed Alli, 59, was appointed Sir Keir Starmer’s chief campaign fundraiser in 2022. Pic: PA
They included expensive clothes for the PM and his wife, luxury designer spectacles for Sir Keir, hospitality at his beloved Arsenal FC, free accommodation in a flat owned by Lord Alli and – perhaps the most contentious – freebie tickets to a Taylor Swift concert at Wembley Stadium, all worth eye-watering amounts.
To make matters worse, the “freebie-gate” scandal engulfed the PM at a time when his chancellor, Rachel Reeves, was cutting winter fuel payments for pensioners, the first of a series of controversial moves by the woman derided as “Rachel from Accounts” by political opponents that have badly damaged Sir Keir’s government in its first nine months.

Sir Keir Starmer continues to stand by his Chancellor Rachel Reeves
The two-child benefit cap, national insurance rises in her October budget, benefit cuts last month and no compensation for the so-called Waspi women have all infuriated many Labour MPs and put Sir Keir’s loyalty to his chancellor under strain.
He’s standing by her for now. “I have full confidence in the chancellor,” he declared, tetchily, when challenged by a Tory MP at PMQs just minutes before her spring statement last week.
But for how long? Most prime ministers eventually fall out with their chancellor: Margaret Thatcher with Sir Geoffrey Howe and then Nigel Lawson in the 1980s and later Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Be warned, Rachel!
On foreign policy, the PM’s record is better. His baptism on the world stage, at a NATO summit in Washington in his first week as PM, helped him swiftly establish a reputation as a safe pair of hands and reliable ally on foreign policy.

Keir Starmer met with Joe Biden at his first NATO summit
Though the UK is no longer in the EU, Sir Keir has forged strong alliances with European leaders – particularly France’s President Macron – as he attempts to build a “coalition of the willing” to defend Ukraine. And he has won the trust of Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy.
And on his biggest foreign policy challenge, establishing good relations with the maverick President Trump, the verdict – even after the president’s tariffs bombshell – is so far, so good.

Starmer has pledged to work with Ukraine and its President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to end the war and defend the country from Russia. Pic: AP
His Trump Tower dinner last September went well, his White House stunt with an envelope containing King Charles’ state visit invitation was a diplomatic masterstroke and the 10% tariffs slapped on the UK could have been a lot worse.
Now comes the really hard part for Five-Year Keir: securing a trade deal with the US, bringing peace to Ukraine without a sell-out or concessions to Vladimir Putin, smashing the gangs smuggling illegal migrants, tackling welfare reform and – the biggest challenge – finding that elusive economic growth at home while the Trump tariffs make autumn tax rises look almost inevitable.

Sir Keir Starmer met Donald Trump at the White House in February. Pic: PA
No pressure, then prime minister. If the lows of Sir Keir’s first five years as Labour leader took the shine off the highs, the next five years – to the next election and perhaps beyond – look even more challenging.
And the journey from Doughty Street to Downing Street is now just a distant memory.
Politics
SEC paints ‘a distorted picture’ of USD-stablecoin market — Crenshaw
Published
2 hours agoon
April 5, 2025By
admin
US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner and vocal crypto critic Caroline Crenshaw has accused the US regulator of downplaying risks and misrepresenting the US stablecoin market in its newly published guidelines.
However, many in the crypto industry see the SEC’s decision as a step in the right direction.
In an April 4 statement, Crenshaw said that the SEC’s statement on stablecoins — issued on the same day — contained “legal and factual errors that paint a distorted picture of the USD-stablecoin market that drastically understates its risks.”
Crenshaw disagrees, crypto industry applauds
Under the new SEC guidelines, stablecoins that meet certain criteria are now considered “non-securities” and are exempt from transaction reporting requirements.
Crenshaw disputed the accuracy of the analysis made by the SEC in arriving at that decision. She pushed back on the SEC for reiterating issuer actions “that supposedly stabilize price, ensure redeemability, and otherwise reduce risk.”
Source: David Sacks
The SEC said that “albeit briefly, that some USD-stablecoins are available to retail purchasers only through an intermediary and not directly from the issuer.”
Crenshaw argued this was misleading. She said:
“It is the general rule, not the exception, that these coins are available to the retail public only through intermediaries who sell them on the secondary market, such as crypto trading platforms.”
“Over 90% of USD-stablecoins in circulation are distributed in this way,” Crenshaw added.
Meanwhile, many in the crypto industry expressed optimism over the decision.
Token Metrics founder Ian Ballina said it “feels like a clear step in focusing on what really matters in the crypto space.” Vemanti CEO Tan Tran said he wished the SEC reached this point three years ago, while Midnight Network’s head of partnerships Ian Kane said it “feels like progress for crypto folks trying to play by the rules.”
Crenshaw said it is “also grossly inaccurate” for the SEC to reassure users that an issuer has sufficient reserves to satisfy unlimited redemption requests just because its reserve is valued “at or above the par value of its outstanding coins.”
Related: Stablecoins’ in bull market’; Solana sputters: VanEck
“The issuer’s overall financial health and solvency cannot be judged by the value of its reserve, which tells us nothing about its liabilities, risk from proprietary financial activities, and so forth,” Crenshaw said.
She explained that stablecoins always carry some risk, particularly during market stress or when their price begins to fall.
It comes only weeks after stablecoin issuer Tether was reportedly engaging with a Big Four accounting firm to audit its assets reserve and verify that its USDT stablecoin is backed at a 1:1 ratio.
On March 22, Cointelegraph reported that Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino said the audit process would be more straightforward under pro-crypto US President Donald Trump.
Magazine: XRP win leaves Ripple a ‘bad actor’ with no crypto legal precedent set
Trending
-
Sports2 years ago
‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports12 months ago
Story injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year ago
Game 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years ago
MLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years ago
Japan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years ago
Game-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years ago
Bank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway