Proactive Investors - If only the US versus Sam Bankman-Fried trial went down the Depp versus Heard route and televised the whole ordeal.
What might we have been privy to when the former head of collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX, who is facing life in prison for fraud and money laundering, took the stand this week?
According to citizen journalist Tiffany Fong, who has emerged as a top conduit of information on the case, we might have seen Bankman-Fried’s parents with their heads in their hands, aghast at their son’s decision to face cross-examination from the prosecution.
It was in typical Sam fashion that he willingly chose to enter the witness box on Thursday, having conducted a whirlwind media tour between FTX’s collapse and his subsequent, belated arrest.
By all accounts, his lines of dialogue in response to probing questions have not changed one bit.
A man with evidently poor memory skills, he doesn’t recall pretty much anything that could be considered incriminating, leading to frustration from Judge Kaplan.
"Listen to the question, and answer the question directly," Judge Kaplan reportedly stated at one point.
His Thursday testimony was labelled apologetic, forgetful and evasive. Here’s a taste, courtesy of Unchained, of his response to whether he believed FTX’s sister company had a right to access FTX customer funds:
“So I should preface this by saying I’m not a lawyer. I’m not giving a legal interpretation of this. I’m just giving, as best I can, what my memory is. And the parts of this that jibe with that, I, you know——I’m not trying to give a definitive legal ruling on what this does or doesn’t say. ——I’m not sure that I would quite answer yes to the question as you most recently phrased it. I’m going to try as best I can to give the answer that I believe, which is that the——as——at least as I remember understanding it at the time, FTX either itself or I think as actually happened, without FTX as an intermediary, customer’s fiat funds would be sent to Alameda bank accounts, FTX would retain a——effectively a debt from Alameda for those and a——in the lien section here …”
Thankfully for him, the jury wasn’t present on Thursday to hear these responses. Perhaps he’ll be more succinct when he testifies in front of the jury today.
Read more on Proactive Investors UK
