Closing arguments for the criminal trial of Sam Bankman Fried (SBF), the disgraced founder of crypto exchange FTX, have officially concluded with U.S. Southern District of New York Judge Lewis Kaplan moving to jury instructions.
As per the indictment from last December, Bankman-Fried faces a total of seven charges, including two counts of wire fraud conspiracy, two counts of wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit commodities fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and commit campaign finance violations.
In his briefing to the jury, Judge Kaplan explained that counts one and three — charges for a scheme to defraud FTX customers using interstate wires and charges for a scheme to defraud lenders to Alameda Research using interstate wires — are substantive, or alleged crimes that are not dependent of another.
“The government need not prove that the victim actually was harmed, only that the defendant [Sam Bankman-Fried] contemplated some harm,” said Judge Kaplan. “The defendant need not have participated in the scheme from the beginning.”
Seemingly to address SBF’s previous defense of relying on the advice of FTX counsel Daniel Friedberg, Judge Kaplan told jurors that “a lawyer’s involvement does not in itself constitute a defense.” Instead, “Intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence.”
Furthermore, Judge Kaplan stated that for conspiracy charges in count two and count four, “it is sufficient if two or more people came to a common understanding to violate the law.” However, he warned that “mere presence at the scene of a crime, or being friendly with a criminal, is not a crime.”
During the ongoing criminal trial, key FTX executives — including former Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison, former FTX chief technology officer Gary Wang and former FTX head of engineering Nishad Singh — have all pled guilty to charges relating to the exchange’s collapse last November and are currently cooperating with the U.S. government in their testimonies against SBF. If convicted, Bankman-Fried faces a maximum penalty of 115 years in prison. The jury will begin deliberations shortly after lunch.
The Bank of England is worried that a rise in financiers’ lending to data center lending may cause an AI bubble reminiscent of the dot-com crash in the early 2000s.
A reference to China being an “enemy” of the UK was removed from key evidence for a collapsed spy trial in 2023 as it “did not reflect government policy” under the Conservatives at the time, according to the national security adviser.
In the letter published by parliament’s Joint Committee on National Security Strategy earlier on Friday, National Security Adviser (NSA) Jonathan Powell said Counter Terror Police and the Crown Prosecution Service were aware of the change made by Deputy National Security Adviser (DSNA) Matt Collins.
This would mean the CPS knew the “enemy” reference had been removed before charging the two suspects, according to Mr Powell.
In another letter published on Friday, the director of public prosecutions (DPP) Stephen Parkinson told the committee that it took DSNA Mr Collins more than a year to confirm to prosecutors he would not say China posed a threat to UK national security in court.
The DPP said a High Court judge ruled in June last year that an “enemy” under law is a state which “presently poses an active threat to the UK’s national security”, prompting the CPS to ask the DNSA whether China fulfilled that criteria.
He added prosecutors did not believe there would be “any difficulty in obtaining evidence” from Mr Collins that China was a national security threat, but added: “This was a sticking point that could not be overcome.”
More on China
Related Topics:
Mr Parkinson added that the DNSA’s “unwillingness” to describe China as an active or current threat was “fatal to the case” because Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry’s defence teams would have been entitled to call him as a witness.
The DPP added: “This factor is compounded by the fact that drafts of the first witness statement, reviewed by us in July 2025, showed that references to China being an ‘enemy’ or ‘possible enemy’ had been deleted.
“Those drafts would probably have been disclosable to the defence.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:38
What do we know about the China spy case?
A final draft of Mr Collins’ statement was sent to then-prime minister Rishi Sunak in December 2023, Mr Powell’s letter said.
“Drafts of a statement provided to DNSA included the term ‘enemy’ but he removed this term from the final draft as it did not reflect government policy,” the letter reads.
It comes amid a political row over the collapse of the prosecution of Christopher Berry and Christopher Cash last month, who were accused of conducting espionage for China.
Both individuals vehemently deny the claims.
Because the CPS was pursuing charges under the Official Secrets Act 1911, prosecutors would have had to show the defendants were acting for an “enemy”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:09
China spy row: Witness statements explained
DPP Mr Parkinson has come under pressure to provide a fuller explanation for the abandonment of the case.
He has blamed insufficient evidence being provided by the government that Beijing represented a threat to the UK at the time of the alleged offences.
The Conservatives have accused Sir Keir Starmer of letting the case collapse, but Labour has said there was nothing more it could have done.
The current government has insisted ministers did not intervene in the case or attempt to make representations to ensure the strength of evidence, for fear of interfering with the course of justice.
Image: Sir Keir Starmer met Chinese premier Xi Jingping in November 2024. Pic: PA
The DNSA and DPP will face questions from the parliamentary committee on Monday afternoon.
The current attorney general, Lord Hermer, and the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, Darren Jones, will be questioned on Wednesday.
The PM’s spokesman reiterated the government’s position that “what is relevant in a criminal case of this nature is the government’s position at the time of the alleged offences”.