The criminal trial of former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) is currently underway in New York, and his legal team has filed motions aiming to ban testimony from users and investors in the exchange.
In separate Oct. 2 filings in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, SBF’s lawyers opposed pre-trial motions from prosecutors requesting FTX customers and investors testify regarding how they believed the cryptocurrency exchange would handle assets. They also sought to block the testimony of a former FTX user — an unnamed Ukrainian national — using a “live two-way video” partly on Sixth Amendment grounds.
“Decisions on specific testimony from specific witnesses relating to their individual understanding of specific statements or aspects of their relationship with FTX or Mr. Bankman-Fried cannot be decided in the abstract,” said the filing on FTX user testimony.
According to SBF’s legal team, prosecutors were trying to “have it both ways” by blocking similar witnesses proposed by the defense as to what they understood about how FTX would handle their funds. Defense lawyers described the motion as “premature”, arguing the subject was a matter for the jury to evaluate.
“[T]he Government seemingly wants evidence regarding how customers (and other putative victims) understood the relationship they chose to enter with FTX to be admissible only if offered by the Government but excluded if offered by the defense.”
Lawyers also argued allowing the Ukrainian witness’ testimony “would apparently reference hardships and individual circumstances created by the Russian invasion of Ukraine” and “elicit the jury’s sympathy and outrage”. The Russian military invaded Ukraine in February 2022 and many areas of the country have faced the constant threat of attack since that time, making international travel difficult.
“Courts routinely exclude relevant evidence that might elicit sympathy among jurors unrelated to the facts of the case,” said the lawyers. “[T]he circumstances under which [the Ukrainian user] would testify and the reason for his absence from the courtroom would themselves be prejudicial […] Jurors would inevitably speculate about why a Ukrainian national (and no other witness) is testifying by video, and the most obvious answers would almost certainly provoke ‘sympathies having no bearing on the merits of the case.’”
The motions were filed hours before jury selection for Bankman-Fried’s criminal trial was scheduled to begin in New York City. At the time of publication, Judge Lewis Kaplan was questioning potential jurors on any conflicts they may have which prevent them from serving in the trial, expected to last through November.
Since Kaplan revoked Bankman-Fried’s bail in August, the former FTX CEO has been largely confined to jail despite several unsuccessful attempts by his lawyers for temporary release. He will face two criminal trials in October 2023 and March 2024, for which he has pleaded not guilty to all 12 criminal charges related to alleged fraud at FTX and Alameda Research.
And tens of billions of pounds of borrowing depends on the answer – which still feels intriguingly opaque.
You might think you know what the fiscal rules are. And you might think you know they’re not negotiable.
For instance, the main fiscal rule says that from 2029-30, the government’s day-to-day spending needs to be in surplus – i.e. rely on taxation alone, not borrowing.
And Rachel Reeves has been clear – that’s not going to change, and there’s no disputing this.
But when the government announced its fiscal rules in October, it actually published a 19-page document – a “charter” – alongside this.
And this contains all sorts of notes and caveats. And it’s slightly unclear which are subject to the “iron clad” promise – and which aren’t.
There’s one part of that document coming into focus – with sources telling me that it could get changed.
And it’s this – a little-known buffer built into the rules.
This says that from spring 2027, if the OBR forecasts that she still actually has a deficit of up to 0.5% of GDP in three years, she will still be judged to be within the rules.
In other words, if in spring 2027 she’s judged to have missed her fiscal rules by perhaps as much as £15bn, that’s fine.
Image: A change could save the chancellor some headaches. Pic: PA
Now there’s a caveat – this exemption only applies, providing at the following budget the chancellor reduces that deficit back to zero.
But still, it’s potentially helpful wiggle room.
This help – this buffer – for Reeves doesn’t apply today, or for the next couple of years – it only kicks in from the spring of 2027.
But I’m being told by a source that some of this might change and the ability to use this wiggle room could be brought forward to this year. Could she give herself a get out of jail card?
The chancellor could gamble that few people would notice this technical change, and it might avoid politically catastrophic tax hikes – but only if the markets accept it will mean higher borrowing than planned.
But the question is – has Rachel Reeves ruled this out by saying her fiscal rules are iron clad or not?
Or to put it another way… is the whole of the 19-page Charter for Budget Responsibility “iron clad” and untouchable, or just the rules themselves?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:17
Is Labour plotting a ‘wealth tax’?
And what counts as “rules” and are therefore untouchable, and what could fall outside and could still be changed?
I’ve been pressing the Treasury for a statement.
And this morning, they issued one.
A spokesman said: “The fiscal rules as set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility are iron clad, and non-negotiable, as are the definition of the rules set out in the document itself.”
So that sounds clear – but what is a definition of the rule? Does it include this 0.5% of GDP buffer zone?
The Treasury does concede that not everything in the charter is untouchable – including the role and remit of the OBR, and the requirements for it to publish a specific list of fiscal metrics.
But does that include that key bit? Which bits can Reeves still tinker with?
The Justice Department says two LA Sheriff deputies admitted to helping extort victims, including for a local crypto mogul, while working their private security side hustles.