Skip to content
Sam Bankman-Fried- Case Archive
personpersonRichard BusickRichard BusickFederal Bureau of Investigation special agent with expertise in historical cell-site analysis.← All People
Witness· Federal Bureau of Investigation

Richard Busick

Federal Bureau of Investigation special agent with expertise in historical cell-site analysis.

AppearedFederal Criminal Trial
145 lines·4 proceedings·2 mentions

About

Called by the government on Day 10, FBI Special Agent Richard Busick testified about historical cell-site analysis. He described his CAST certification, continuing training, extensive experience conducting such analyses, and prior court appearances.

On direct examination, Busick explained how AT&T records identify connection times, cell sites, and antenna sectors, and how those data can be mapped to estimate a device's vicinity. He analyzed number 650-906-9179 over a period from roughly June 2021 through November 2022. An admitted email showed Samuel Bankman-Fried providing that number, and Busick compared the cellular records with appointment and email records. He testified that the records were consistent with the device being in Manhattan and near several identified locations.

Busick qualified those findings by explaining that the records identify the connected antenna rather than the phone's exact position. He described mapped sectors and circles as approximations affected by distance, buildings, network density, antenna direction, terrain, and other conditions. The court admitted the AT&T records and Busick's summary report, along with related documents.

On cross-examination, Busick agreed that the government supplied the number, records, and dates and times for review. He acknowledged that the analysis could indicate where the device may have been but could not identify its user or reveal the content of calls. He also explained that he had searched the broader records for Manhattan connections before comparing his findings with dates specified by the government. A final direct-examination example left unresolved a conflict between an October date in the question and email and a November date in his answer.

Trial Record (4)

FederalFederal Criminal TrialOct 3, 2023 – Nov 2, 2023Called by prosecution

Testified on Day 10 about historical cell-site records used to estimate a phone's vicinity, including findings consistent with the analyzed device being in Manhattan near identified locations. Cross-examination established that the analysis was approximate and could not identify the device's user or reveal call content.

Day 9

Day 10

DirectRichard Busick — DirectRichard BusickDanielle Kudla6highlights111lines spoken

Summary

FBI agent Richard Busick explained historical cell-site analysis and testified that AT&T records placed the 9179 phone in Manhattan or near specified meeting locations during several relevant periods.

Highlights (6)

testimony highlightBusick described more than 21 years as an FBI special agent, his CAST certification and training, more than a thousand cell-site analyses, and approximately 18 prior expert appearances.Open in transcript →
testimony highlightAfter explaining how AT&T records identify the connected antenna rather than the phone's exact position, Busick described mapping and verifying the data against AT&T's cell-site list.Open in transcript →
Quote“Next, we have the latitude and longitude——think GPS coordinate——of the actual cell site itself, so that's the location of the antenna——not the phone but the antenna that the phone connected to at the time.”— Richard BusickBusick distinguished the known antenna location from the phone's approximate location, an important limitation of the analysis.Open in transcript →
evidence eventAn admitted email attributed the analyzed 650-906-9179 number to Sam Bankman-Fried, and Busick confirmed that it was the number used in his analysis.Open in transcript →
Show all 6 highlights
testimony highlightBusick compared appointment and email records with cell-site data and offered qualified vicinity opinions for multiple Manhattan locations and time periods.Open in transcript →
testimony highlightIn the final example, the question concerned October 14, 2022, but Busick's answer referred to November 14 while placing the phone near 11 Madison Avenue.Open in transcript →
CrossRichard Busick — CrossRichard BusickChristian R. Everdell4highlights34lines spoken

Summary

Defense counsel established that Richard Busick's cell-site analysis could suggest where the 9179 phone was located but could not identify its user or reveal call content.

Highlights (4)

admissionBusick confirmed that the phone records and his analysis could not identify who was using the phone.Open in transcript →
Quote“Correct. I cannot determine that via the records.”— Richard BusickBusick directly stated the central limitation of the cell-site evidence: it could not identify the person using the phone.Open in transcript →
testimony highlightIn response to the court, Busick explained that he first searched the records for Manhattan connections and that the government's specified dates and times coincided with dates he had identified.Open in transcript →
Quote“I first looked throughout the records to determine when the records indicated that the phone was connecting with cell sites in Manhattan and then, in regards to the specific dates and times, those were provided to me by the government.”— Richard BusickBusick distinguished his initial review for Manhattan activity from the government's selection of particular dates and times.Open in transcript →