Sam Bankman-Fried took the stand in his felony trial at the moment in an try to keep away from a long time in jail for alleged fraud at cryptocurrency trade FTX and its affiliate Alameda Analysis.

Offering testimony has been referred to as a dangerous transfer for Bankman-Fried by many authorized observers. After answering questions posted by his personal attorneys, Bankman-Fried should face cross-examination from federal prosecutors. However after three weeks through which US authorities attorneys laid out their case, together with testimony from former FTX and Alameda executives, Bankman-Fried’s authorized group introduced yesterday that he would take the stand.

As we speak’s testimony was uncommon as a result of US District Decide Lewis Kaplan despatched the jury house for the day to conduct a listening to on whether or not sure elements of his testimony are admissible. “Meaning Bankman-Fried will give a few of his testimony to the decide with out the jury current. The decide will then determine whether or not Bankman-Fried is allowed to say the identical testimony in entrance of a jury,” The Wall Avenue Journal wrote in its dwell protection. The trial isn’t being streamed through audio or video.

In at the moment’s jury-less continuing, Bankman-Fried answered questions from each his personal lawyer and a authorities prosecutor. The present Bankman-Fried trial includes seven felony costs with most sentences including as much as 110 years. He faces one other 5 felony costs in a associated trial anticipated to start in March 2024.

Bankman-Fried reportedly struggled in his preliminary testimony at the moment. Kaplan instructed the defendant to cease being evasive throughout questioning by Assistant US Lawyer Danielle Sassoon, telling him to “hearken to the query and reply the query immediately.”

SBF “skimmed over” FTX phrases of service

A few of the alleged fraud pertains to how Alameda borrowed cash from FTX. In testimony at the moment, “Bankman-Fried mentioned he believed that underneath FTX’s phrases of service, sister agency Alameda was allowed in lots of circumstances to borrow funds from the trade,” the WSJ wrote. Bankman-Fried reportedly mentioned the phrases of service had been written by FTX attorneys and that he solely “skimmed” sure elements.

“I learn elements in depth. Components I skimmed over,” Bankman-Fried reportedly mentioned after Kaplan requested if he learn the complete phrases of service doc.

Sassoon requested Bankman-Fried if he had “any conversations with attorneys about Alameda spending buyer cash that was deposited into FTX financial institution accounts,” based on Bloomberg’s dwell protection. “I do not recall any conversations that had been contemporaneous and phrased that means,” Bankman-Fried answered.

“I had so many conversations with attorneys later once we had been attempting to reconcile issues in November 2022,” Bankman-Fried additionally mentioned. “There have been conversations round Alameda getting used as a fee processor, a fee agent for FTX. I frankly do not recall conversations with attorneys or in any other case concerning the utilization of the funds or the North Dimension accounts.” North Dimension was an Alameda subsidiary. The Securities and Alternate Fee has alleged that “Bankman-Fried directed FTX to have clients ship funds to North Dimension in an effort to cover the truth that the funds had been being despatched to an account managed by Alameda.”

One determination for Kaplan is whether or not Bankman-Fried shall be allowed accountable FTX attorneys when the jury is again within the courtroom. As we beforehand wrote, that is referred to as an “advice-of-counsel protection” through which SBF might argue that he sought recommendation from firm attorneys, obtained recommendation that his conduct was authorized, and “relied on that recommendation in good religion.”

Earlier than the trial started, Kaplan issued an order that prohibited Bankman-Fried from utilizing the advice-of-counsel protection in opening statements. However Kaplan left the door open for SBF to make use of the advice-of-counsel protection “on a case-by-case foundation” because the trial continues.