Many former executives with cryptocurrency exchange FTX or its sister companies are on the list to testify in the United States Justice Department’s criminal case against Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried.
During jury selection for SBF’s trial on Oct. 3, Assistant U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon said former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison, FTX co-founder Gary Wang, former FTX engineering director Nishad Singh and former FTX chief operating officer Constance Wang were among the names of witnesses who may testify against Bankman-Fried. Ellison, Gary Wang and Singh have already pleaded guilty to charges related to their roles in the collapse of FTX, while Ryan Salame — the former co-CEO of FTX Digital Markets and the fifth person directly connected to the criminal case — will not testify.
Other names floated by Sassoon included SkyBridge Capital co-founder Anthony Scaramucci, who has previously criticized SBF’s alleged role in the crypto market downturn of 2022. Judge Lewis Kaplan started proceedings in the SBF criminal trial by asking prospective jurors questions related to the case.
According to multiple reports from the courthouse, Bankman-Fried appeared for the first time without his signature messy hair, which appeared to have been cut for the first week of the trial. Kaplan confirmed that prosecutors had not offered the former FTX CEO a plea deal in the case and questioned prospective jurors on scheduling, hardships and conflicts of interest. He also issued a warning about avoiding the consumption of media related to the trial.
“This case has generated publicity,” said Kaplan, according to reports. “You’re to stay away from it — podcasts, anything. Did any of you watch 60 Minutes on Sunday?” [This likely refers to Michael Lewis’ interview on Bankman-Fried.]
At the time of publication, Kaplan had dismissed four out of 12 prospective jurors in the court and said selection would continue the morning of Oct. 4. The trial is expected to last through November, though the judge reportedly said that his cases “rarely take as long as the lawyers think.”
Opening arguments in the criminal trial are expected to begin on Oct. 4, during which the defense and prosecutors will each take roughly 25 to 40 minutes to address the jury. Bankman-Fried faces seven criminal counts in his first trial, with another five charges to be addressed in a second trial starting in March 2024.
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.