On the third day of the criminal trial for Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried, the former CEO’s roommate at MIT and FTX developer Adam Yedidia testified about the $8-billion deficit the crypto exchange reported prior to its bankruptcy.
According to reports from Inner City Press from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Yedidia took the stand on Oct. 5 to speak on the connections between the crypto exchange and Alameda Research — one of the key pieces of information at the center of SBF’s alleged fraud. Yedida reportedly informed Bankman-Fried about a bug in FTX’s code that ensured “Alameda’s liabilities did not decrease,” resulting in a roughly $8 billion error.
Addressing questions by Assistant U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon, Yedidia reportedly said his resignation from FTX followed the revelation that “Alameda had used customer deposits to pay its loans.” He also claimed Bankman-Fried asked him to speak on the matter of FTX’s code via the messaging app Signal:
“He told me to use Signal. He told the entire company. It also had auto-delete. […] He said it [auto-delete] was all down-side to keep messages around. If regulators found things they didn’t like, it could be bad for the company.”
Subscribe to our ‘1 Minute Letter’ NOW for daily deep-dives straight to your inbox! ⚖️ Be the first to know every twist and turn in the Sam Bankman-Fried case! Subscribe now: https://t.co/jQOIYUv6IW#SBFpic.twitter.com/gp7zJu5sgy
SBF’s former roommate later reportedly confronted him near a “paddle tennis court” in the Bahamas regarding the $8-billion hole, at which the then-CEO offered reassurances over the situation. Sassoon’s line of questioning also included Yedidia’s knowledge of Bankman-Fried’s personal relationship with former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison:
“He [SBF] said they had had sex and asked me if I thought they should date. […] I said no.”
Ellison is expected to testify against Bankman-Fried as part of her plea agreement with prosecutors. The judge overseeing the criminal trial, Lewis Kaplan, revoked SBF’s bail in August following arguments from the prosecution that he had engaged in witness intimidation against Ellison and others by revealing some of her personal journals to New York Times reporters.
Bankman-Fried’s first criminal trial kicked off on Oct. 3 with jury selection and is expected to run through November. Gary Wang, one of the co-founders of FTX, will likely testify after Yedidia. Prosecutors said they may also call on former FTX engineering director Nishad Singh and former FTX chief operating officer Constance Wang.
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.