Sam Bankman-Fried was breathlessly described as a wunderkind – a boy wonder transforming the world of finance.
Renowned for his messy hair and unkempt appearance, he graced the covers of Forbes and Fortune, who pondered whether he could become the next Warren Buffett.
The 32-year-old was the founder of FTX, which had quickly become the world’s second-largest cryptocurrency exchange – a place where investors could buy and sell digital assets like Bitcoin.
Image: Larry David appeared in an advert for FTX during the Super Bowl in 2022
Star-studded adverts featuring the tennis player Naomi Osaka and the comedian Larry David added to its allure – with eye-watering sums spent on sponsorship deals.
But in November 2022, Bankman-Fried’s crypto empire came crashing down after it emerged that customer funds worth $10bn (£7.9bn) was missing.
A year later, a jury convicted the fallen entrepreneur of fraud and money laundering after just five hours of deliberations – based on evidence from close colleagues who had turned against him.
Now, “SBF” is beginning a lengthy prison sentence of 25 years for what prosecutors have described as “one of the biggest financial frauds in American history”.
His punishment may be little comfort to five million FTX customers who were suddenly locked out of their accounts as the company entered bankruptcy – and are yet to receive any compensation.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:19
November: ‘Crypto king’ guilty of fraud
An estimated 80,000 of Bankman-Fried’s victims were based in the UK. Some of them had millions of pounds tied up in the company after entrusting him with their life savings.
Advertisement
While slick marketing campaigns had presented FTX as a safe way to invest in volatile cryptocurrencies, the reality behind the scenes couldn’t have been more different.
Secret back doors had been established that allowed SBF’s other company, Alameda Research, to access money belonging to FTX customers and make risky bets without their knowledge.
Meanwhile, executives were spending lavishly. Private jets ferried Amazon orders from Miami to the firm’s headquarters in the Bahamas, £12m was spent on luxury hotel stays in just nine months, and employees in the US were allowed to order £160 of food deliveries each a day.
The fallout from FTX’s demise also reaches as far as the White House. Bankman-Fried was one of the largest donors to Joe Biden’s campaign in 2020, with the president subsequently facing pressure to return millions of dollars.
Image: Sam Bankman-Fried’s colleague and on-off girlfriend Caroline Ellison testified against him. Pic: Reuters
A new chief executive has been tasked with untangling where all the money went. Soon after FTX went under, he said: “Never in my career have I seen such a complete failure of corporate controls.”
Unusually, and thankfully, FTX victims are expected to be compensated in full eventually – kind of.
The payouts they receive will be based on what cryptocurrencies were worth in November 2022. But Bitcoin was trading at £16,000 back then and is now worth £55,500.
Bizarre plans to bring FTX out of bankruptcy and reopen the exchange have also been abandoned.
Other entrepreneurs in this space – who had loyal, cult-like followings and huge profiles – are also facing jail time.
Image: Changpeng Zhao has pleaded guilty to money laundering charges. Pic: Reuters
His company had allowed individuals in Syria, Iran and Russian-occupied parts of Ukraine to evade economic sanctions – and allegedly made it easy for terrorists and criminals to move money.
The billionaire faces jail time when he is sentenced next month.
Do Kwon created two cryptocurrencies that spectacularly collapsed in May 2022, with investors losing an estimated $40bn (£31.7bn) in a matter of days.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
He later went on the run but was captured in Montenegro last year after attempting to fly to Dubai using a fake passport.
A civil fraud trial against Kwon and his company Terraform Labs began this week, with prosecutors warning: “Terra was a fraud, a house of cards, and when it collapsed, investors nearly lost everything.”
Image: Do Kwon created two cryptocurrencies that lost tens of billions of dollars – then went on the run. Pic: Reuters
In a way, Bankman-Fried’s sentence marks the end of an era for crypto – when extravagant excesses and a lack of regulatory oversight were the norm.
Bitcoin’s recent gains have been driven by regulated products that allow investors to gain exposure to the cryptocurrency’s price without owning it directly.
And many of these products are offered by established, traditional finance firms like BlackRock, which is the world’s largest asset management company.
A damning report described the rise and fall of FTX as a tale of “hubris, incompetence and greed” – with Bankman-Fried and his inner circle showing little regard for the financial wellbeing of his customers.
Millions of people had their fingers burned, and many will be put off from ever investing in cryptocurrencies again.
But while the industry has learned some lessons, the crypto market’s rapid surge in recent months mean there’s a real risk of another bubble forming – and new bad actors taking advantage of investors looking for a piece of the action.
The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas seemingly came to an end overnight after Israel launched dozens of air strikes on targets across Gaza.
Palestinian authorities have said more than 400 people are either dead or missing.
The ceasefire agreed back in mid-January had paused fighting after 15 months of war. It also saw both sides agree to the release of Israeli hostages taken during the 7 October attacks back in 2023, in exchange for Palestinian prisoners.
So what is left of the ceasefire now, and why did Israel choose to strike Hamas?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:47
Explosive end to Gaza ceasefire
What did the agreed ceasefire look like?
The three-stage deal, brokered by mediators the US, Qatar and Egypt, came into effect on 19 January.
During the first phase, Hamas returned 25 living hostages and the remains of eight others in exchange for the release of nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners.
Israeli forces also withdrew to buffer zones inside Gaza, and hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians returned to northern Gaza. No further hostage releases were called for under the agreement until the second phase.
Negotiations over this second phase of the deal were meant to begin on the 16th day of phase one – 4 February – and were supposed to lead to a permanent ceasefire, the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces and the release of all remaining hostages.
According to the deal, a third phase would include the return of the bodies of dead hostages and the beginning of Gaza’s reconstruction, a mammoth task that will be supervised by Egypt, Qatar and the UN.
It had little detail about the future of Gaza – from how it will be governed, to any guarantees that the ceasefire agreement will bring a permanent end to the war.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:32
Gaza: ‘It’s a critical situation’
What has actually happened?
The first phase of the ceasefire deal officially ended two weeks ago. Israel has since cut off all food, medicine, fuel, electricity and other supplies to Gaza’s population of around two million people, to pressure Hamas to accept a new proposal ahead of a second phase of ceasefire.
The move was widely criticised, with Hamas accusing Israel of trying to cause famine in Gaza, and the head of the UN Palestinian relief agency (UNRWA) warning the territory will experience another hunger crisis if Israel continues to withhold aid.
Israel’s new proposal would require Hamas to release half its remaining hostages – the militant group’s main bargaining chip – in exchange for a ceasefire extension and a promise to negotiate a lasting truce.
It is named the “Witkoff plan”, after US Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff proposed it last week.
The proposal made no mention of releasing more Palestinian prisoners.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it was Hamas’s refusal of this proposal that led to him ordering the strikes on Tuesday.
Unless mediators now step in, Israel’s attack on Gaza could mean a full return to fighting.
Image: Palestinians flee their homes after evacuation orders from Israel’s army. Pics: Reuters
Could a new ceasefire be agreed?
Last week, Israel sent a delegation to the Qatari capital, Doha, for more ceasefire talks, and Hamas leaders attended a round of talks in Cairo, but there has been no sign of a breakthrough.
Reacting to the latest strikes, Egypt’s foreign ministry called for all parties to “exercise restraint” and to give mediators space to “complete their efforts to reach a permanent ceasefire”.
Hamas claimed it is “working with mediators to curb the aggression”, adding that it is keen to implement a ceasefire deal.
Image: IDF evacuation plans tell residents to leave Beit Hanoun, Khuza’a, Abasan al-Kabira and al-Jadida
Meanwhile, a statement from the office of Mr Netanyahu said Israel would act against Hamas with “increasing military strength”. It accused Hamas of repeatedly refusing to release hostages.
The White House said it had been consulted and voiced support for Israel’s actions.
The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) has also issued evacuation orders for a number of areas in Gaza – after the ceasefire agreement allowed hundreds of thousands of people to return to their homes across the region.
The order tells people to leave the neighbourhoods of Beit Hanoun, Khuza’a, Abasan al-Kabira and al-Jadida and head to shelters in Gaza City and Khan Younis.
Sky News Middle East correspondent Alistair Bunkallsaid the order may indicate that an Israeli land force is preparing to enter the area.
“If you’re going to have a major ground offensive, and if it could from all angles, I think they would look to force Gazan civilians into humanitarian zones,” he said.
“That would give the IDF some freedom of operation, freedom of movement, in open areas.”
Thousands are demanding justice for 59 people killed in a nightclub fire in North Macedonia, as authorities prepare graves for its victims.
More than 150 were also injured after pyrotechnics sparked a fire at Club Pulse in Kocani, with government officials and the nightclub’s manager among 20 people arrested.
But some protests turned violent in the eastern town and in the capital Skopje, where thousands have called for more action amid a litany of alleged safety failures.
As excavators dug a fresh line of graves in the town of 25,000 people, 16-year-old Jovan, who lost a friend in the fire, described his country as “corrupt”.
“I want everyone who helped this place carry on with its business to be jailed,” he said, speaking from a quiet protest in Kocani’s central square.
Image: Pic: AP
Some held placards reading “we are not dying from accidents; we are dying from corruption” and “everything is legal here if you have connections”.
A van was overturned there, while others threw rocks at a local government building.
Image: Protesters overturned a van in Kocani. Pic: AP
Investigations have so far revealed that the club was operating at double its 250-person capacity, without proper licensing.
Many were trampled as they rushed toward a single exit.
There were numerous safety violations, according to officials, including:
• no emergency exits; • insufficient fire equipment; • the use of flammable cladding and no sprinkler system.
Datawrapper
This content is provided by Datawrapper, 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 Datawrapper 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 Datawrapper cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Datawrapper cookies for this session only.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s have both said any ceasefire between their two countries must lead to a lasting peace.
Ukraine has not long marked three years of war, in which hundreds of thousands have died or been injured on both sides, according to the respective authorities.
The Kremlin’s annexation of more Ukrainian territory during its invasion – which it still calls a “special military operation” -and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s determination to uphold its sovereignty has left many analysts doubtful the war will ever end.
But since his return to the White House, Donald Trump has demanded the two sides “make a deal”, withdrawing vital US support to Kyiv until it agreed to come to the negotiating table.
Mr Zelenskyy has now agreed to a 30-day ceasefire, with Mr Trump due to iron out Russia’s demands in a phone call with Mr Putin on Tuesday.
But beyond that – what would a Ukraine without fighting look like? Here we go through some of the options.
Ongoing ceasefire
Beyond the initial 30-day agreement, providing neither side violates it, the ceasefire could continue indefinitely.
“A ceasefire can go on to be an enduring thing,” Dr David Blagden, associate professor in international security and strategy at the University of Exeter, tells Sky News.
He gives the example of North and South Korea, whereby a demilitarised zone (DMZ) has effectively served as a border between the two countries since the Korean War ended in 1953.
“Even if it doesn’t ever lead to a more satisfactory settlement, it might still be better for both parties than endless conflict,” he says.
But any kind of DMZ would require both Ukraine and Russia to pull their troops away from the frontline, which is unlikely, adds Dr Huseyn Aliyev, senior lecturer in East European studies at the University of Glasgow.
Image: A map shows how much of Ukraine Russia controls
Parts of Ukraine become ‘New Russia’
The alternative would be for both Ukraine and Russia to offer concessions to formally end the war.
Top of Vladimir Putin’s “list of demands” for “long-term peace”, and his justification for invading Ukraine in the first place, is Crimea – and four other regions – Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia – becoming part of a ‘New Russia’, as they were before the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
Image: A Russian flag flies in the occupied town of Avdiivka, Donetsk. Pic: Reuters
While Luhansk is almost completely under Russian control, Ukraine still holds significant parts of Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, making them more difficult for Kyiv to let go of.
“We know neither Crimea nor the Donbas regions [Donetsk and Luhansk] would be returned [to Ukraine] as part of a truce,” Dr Aliyev says. “So it would involve ceding control over those parts.
“But Kherson and Zaporizhzhia are more complicated – especially Kherson – as Kherson city was so painfully liberated by Ukraine in 2022.”
Although many doubt Russia would stop there in terms of territory, Dr Blagden adds: “There would be Russian rationale for being content with what they already have. It’s been hugely costly for them – and destroyed a lot of their expensively modernised military. It’s also filtered through into Russian civilian life, to an extent, via the sanctions and casualties, despite the Kremlin’s efforts to insulate Russia’s upper and middle classes from the worst of the war.
“Likewise, for Ukraine – galling and unfair though it may be – there’s likely now more recognition that retaking lost ground will be desperately hard, especially without assured supplies of US weaponry and intelligence. So, they could have reason to live with some sort of ceasefire too.”
Power plants and infrastructure split
Mr Trump has said his team has already proposed “dividing up certain assets” between the two countries – namely “land and power plants” – and will discuss the details with Mr Putin in a phone call on Tuesday.
He did not give any specifics, but these are likely to include the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, which has been occupied by Russia since March 2022, and is one of the largest in the world.
Other key infrastructure that could come under Moscow’s control includes the Nova Kakhovka dam, blown up in 2023 and not yet rebuilt, and other river crossings.
Image: A Russian soldier guards the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in 2022. File pic: AP
Zelenskyy replaced
A truce would also likely include a new leader for Ukraine. Mr Zelenskyy has already told Sky News he is open to stepping down if it means Ukraine can join NATO.
One of Mr Putin’s demands is that Ukraine is never allowed NATO membership – but replacing Mr Zelenskyy could still serve to appease him – and Donald Trump, who has called him a “dictator” and accused him of “gambling with World War Three”.
Image: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a tense exchange with Donald Trump at the White House. Pic: Reuters
“It would be easier for Zelenskyy to call an election and have somebody replace him,” Dr Aliyev says. “But there’s a problem of who that would be – as there’s not much left of the Ukrainian opposition.”
Contenders include Ukrainian ambassador to the UK Valerii Zaluzhnyi – or one of the generals currently in charge of the military, he adds.
But the Kremlin would prefer a pro-Russian regime in Kyiv, according to Dr Blagden.
“Short of being able to conquer the whole country, a government that’s more favourable towards Russian interests would obviously be their preference,” he says.
“Similar to the one they’ve worked hard to install in Georgia, they might hope for the return of Ukraine’s more pro-Russian politicians and sentiment from before 2014. But of course, Ukrainian opinion is now galvanised against anyone seen as a puppet of Moscow.”
‘Minor concessions’ for Ukraine
Although Russia’s demands would mean a series of heavy blows for Ukraine, there could be some “minor concessions”, security and defence analyst Professor Michael Clarke says.
US national security adviser Mike Waltz has said Ukraine would get “security guarantees” if it agrees to cede territory – but has not specified what they would be.
Other possible concessions include the return of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children who were abducted and forcibly resettled in Russia – and prisoners of war on both sides.
In principle, if a truce was agreed, the International Criminal Court could also begin an investigation into whether war crimes were committed on either side.
“In these situations where there’s a fundamental disagreement and you can’t see the way forward, you often concentrate on some of the minor details,” Professor Clarke says.
Starmer’s ‘coalition of the willing’
Sir Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have spearheaded the idea of a so-called “coalition of the willing” to uphold a potential truce or ceasefire.
Sir Keir’s team says “more than 30” countries are interested in contributing to the peacekeeping force – but the US has been notably absent from leaders’ meetings so far. Vladimir Putin has also said he would not accept NATO forces in Ukraine, posing a major obstacle to the plans.
The prime minister has not specified how the coalition would work but said that military chiefs would meet to discuss the “operational phase” on Thursday.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:29
What could a peacekeeping force actually do?
Lower risk option
According to the experts, the coalition could take two potential forms.
Neither would involve guarding the entire frontline. That’s because, at 640 miles long, it would require more than 100,000 troops at a time – and 300,000 with rotations.
Image: A map shows the frontline of fighting in Ukraine
By contrast, the first option would be stationing troops away from the line of control, largely in western Ukraine – or at key infrastructural sites or transport hubs to ensure they continue running smoothly.
This would be a similar operation to the British one in Estonia – where 900 troops are stationed to deter Russian aggression. The Ukrainian one would involve up to 30,000 personnel and be focused primarily on monitoring, logistics, and training, the experts say.
Image: A British paratrooper and helicopter in Estonia in May 2024. Pic: Reuters
“The challenge for any peacekeeping force is balancing effectiveness and escalatory risk,” Dr Blagden adds.
“Calling it a ‘peacekeeping’ force might create the impression of neutrality. But of course, it wouldn’t be neutral – they’re there to defend one of two sides. It would be better understood as a garrison whose job would be to ensure that Russia can’t attack Ukraine without attacking NATO troops, and therefore risking a wider war with nuclear-armed powers,” he says.
“A larger combat force closer to the frontline would create more deterrence but with more escalatory risk – whereas a smaller force further from the frontline – perhaps merely fulfilling training and support tasks – would carry much less escalatory risk but therefore also be much less of a deterrent”.
Ordinarily, that deterrent would be hugely bolstered by the US, which under NATO’s Article 5 could send in powerful air forces to attack ones on the ground – as it has in places like Iraq.
But Donald Trump’s tense relations with Ukraine and suggestions the US could leave NATO have thrown its Article 5 obligations into major doubt.
‘Rapid reaction force’ closer to frontline
Alternatively, coalition troops could be sent closer to the frontline, Professor Clarke says.
They would be split into brigades manning four or five strategic bases like the cities of Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Kharkiv or Kyiv.
Describing them as a “rapid reaction force at high readiness”, Professor Clarke adds: “To be able to go to any trouble spot and snuff it out they’d need a lot of transport – particularly air cover to get there quickly enough.”
They too would likely need to be backed up by a US security guarantee, he says, but under the Trump administration, this is by no means certain.
Image: A UN peacekeeping vehicle in southern Lebanon in November 2024. Pic: Reuters
Neutral peacekeeping force
Alternatively, a peacekeeping force could be led by the United Nations, which would recruit personnel from neutral countries in exchange for incentives, as it does elsewhere.
With the second-largest military in NATO, Turkey could be involved, Dr Aliyev says.
But with Vladimir Putin’s rejection of potential NATO forces, he may be more likely to accept ones from the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) nations, Professor Clarke adds.
“Putin has hinted at troops from the Global South as monitors – because he thinks they are on his side,” he says. India in particular could be a viable option, he says.
“India has got big forces and wants to play a bigger strategic role in the world. Russia wouldn’t want to fire on Indian forces because of the political implications for their relationship – so they might be most acceptable to both Russia and the West.”
Image: UN peacekeepers training in Mongolia. Pic: Reuters
While a neutral option might be the most practical – it may not be hugely successful, Dr Aliyev cautions.
“Similar missions in Lebanon and sub-Saharan Africa have been relatively low in effectiveness,” he says.”A UN force might be the most feasible for Russia – but a coalition of the willing would last longer.”