Since November 2022, Sam Bankman-Fried, the cofounder and former CEO of FTX, has informed one story of his crypto change’s collapse. Since December, the Justice Division has informed a unique one.
Was Bankman-Fried an ungainly math nerd who acted in good religion up till FTX declared chapter? Or was he a prison mastermind who erected a crypto empire with stolen buyer funds?
On Wednesday, as they delivered their closing statements to the jury, attorneys for either side swapped tales for the ultimate time—and gave essentially the most crystallized accounts of why they assume the previous CEO of FTX is both responsible of a number of counts of fraud or an harmless man who merely made dangerous enterprise selections.
‘A pyramid of deceit’
Nicolas Roos, a prosecutor for the federal government, began his closing assertion in the identical means Thane Rehn, one other prosecutor, opened the trial: pointing at Bankman-Fried to declare that “this man” was accountable for stealing billions of {dollars} from 1000’s of individuals.
“This was a pyramid of deceit,” he stated of FTX, talking animatedly as he confronted the jury.
Roos listed out the info that weren’t in dispute: prospects misplaced billions of {dollars}, prospects believed their deposits to be safe, and FTX had an enormous gap in its stability sheet after its collapse. So, what was in rivalry? Whether or not Bankman-Fried knew that taking prospects’ cryptocurrency and money off his change was “flawed.”
Roos proceeded to level to what he referred to as the “overwhelming proof of Bankman-Fried’s guilt,” together with six examples, derived from witness testimony and authorities reveals, of when he “doubled down,” or continued to make use of buyer funds slightly than come clear and admit to fraud.
Utilizing two backdoors from Alameda, his crypto hedge fund, into FTX, Bankman-Fried withdrew crypto and money to pay for actual property, enterprise investments, celeb partnerships, amongst different bills. These episodes of “doubling down” included a $2.2 billion inventory buyback from Binance, $1.2 billion of which was from prospects, the federal government claimed.
As for Bankman-Fried’s testimony when he took the witness stand? “He lied to you,” Roos stated to the jury concerning the former crypto mogul, whose assured solutions below direct examination have been “clearly rehearsed.” When the federal government questioned Bankman-Fried, “he was a unique particular person,” stated the prosecutor. “He approached each query as if up was down and down was up.”
After a lunch break, into what approached an nearly four-hour-long closing assertion, Roos rested his case: “The defendant is overwhelmingly, past cheap doubt, responsible.”
‘Unhealthy enterprise selections’
Versus Roos—who spoke loudly and gesticulated vigorously—Mark Cohen, one among Bankman-Fried’s attorneys, delivered his closing assertion within the soothing tones of a bedtime story.
“Thanks on your service on this case,” Cohen stated to the jury within the late afternoon. “You’ve all executed a wonderful job.”
He then delivered a “a real-world” account of Bankman-Fried’s rise and fall, versus the federal government’s “movie-world” narrative. Bankman-Fried was not a movie-style villain, he informed the jury, a metaphor he would typically repeat all through his closing assertion. He was a math nerd who was merely appearing in “good religion.”
He harped on Bankman-Fried’s good religion not only for narrative impact. “Good religion” is an applicable authorized protection to allegations of fraud, he stated. If Bankman-Fried didn’t purposefully and knowingly have interaction in a prison conspiracy, then he shouldn’t be discovered responsible, Cohen argued.
Echoing his opening, Cohen stated that FTX was an “revolutionary” enterprise with “wonderful merchandise.” Its fall was not the results of years-long fraud however due to dangerous enterprise selections. “Unhealthy enterprise selections usually are not against the law,” Cohen informed the jury.
As for Bankman-Fried’s efficiency on the witness stand? “Not like the federal government witnesses, he was removed from polished,” stated Cohen. As an alternative, “he was Sam,” unvarnished and unfiltered.
Cohen’s closing assertion stretched from the late afternoon into the early night. On Thursday, the federal government will ship a rebuttal. Then, the choice of who “was Sam” is not going to be litigated by attorneys. It is going to be determined by the jury.
