Nishad Singh

Called by the government on Day 9, Singh testified as FTX's former head of engineering and admitted participating in fraud, money laundering, and campaign-finance violations. He described Bankman-Fried's authority over business and technical decisions, Alameda's receipt of customer deposits, the fiat@FTX accounting issue, Alameda's allow-negative feature and large line of credit, and spending and political donations funded through Alameda.

Singh testified that he learned in September 2022 that Alameda was borrowing $13 billion from FTX and that customer funds accounted for much of the shortfall. He said he refused a request to backdate locked Serum transfers for collateral reporting, while admitting that he made other backdated entries that increased FTX's reported 2021 revenue above $1 billion. He also described objecting to proposed public assurances during the November withdrawal crisis and characterized Bankman-Fried's statements that FTX was fine and could cover customer holdings as false.

On Day 10, the defense tested Singh's account of FTX spending, Alameda's borrowing, special code features, political donations, and his knowledge timeline. Singh acknowledged legitimate potential benefits from some sponsorships and relationships, explained operational reasons for certain code changes, and said he first knew he had acted wrongfully when he helped alter Serum staking-fee revenue in December 2021. He said he suspected improper Alameda borrowing by June 2022 and understood by September that the money was not there. Questions using government interview notes also pressed his memory and his characterization of donation funding as loans.

On redirect, Singh said he had not reviewed prosecutors' interview notes before they were shown during cross-examination. He testified that a proposed $477 million options loan existed only on paper, that many political-donation transfers lacked paperwork and genuine repayment terms, and that he forfeited his house because he had bought it while understanding that he was putting himself ahead of customers. He linked his thoughts of resignation to knowing that he was participating in criminal conduct and identified Bankman-Fried and Ryan Salame as people with whom he conspired. The court instructed jurors that Bankman-Fried was not charged in this case with campaign-finance crimes.