Samuel Bankman-Fried

Tried on fraud and conspiracy charges arising from FTX and Alameda Research, Bankman-Fried was the defendant and the central subject of the parties' competing theories. The prosecution alleged that he directed Alameda's undisclosed use of FTX customer deposits, concealed the resulting shortfall, and made false assurances to customers, investors, and lenders. The defense maintained that FTX and Alameda were legitimate businesses, that lending to Alameda was believed to be permitted and adequately secured, and that business failure and risk-taking did not establish fraudulent intent.

Witness testimony and documentary evidence repeatedly addressed his public statements about customer safety, withdrawal liquidity, risk controls, regulation, and separation between FTX and Alameda. The prosecution also presented insider testimony, code and database evidence, financial records, Signal data, political-transfer tracing, and evidence concerning Alameda's account privileges. The defense challenged cooperating witnesses' incentives and argued that contemporaneous business decisions and communications had been presented without sufficient context.

His testimony ran from Day 14 through Day 17. On direct examination, he described FTX's Signal and data-retention practices, customer-deposit arrangements, terms of service, omnibus wallets, Alameda's payment-agent role, loans, venture investments, hedging discussions, operational priorities, and the November withdrawal crisis. He maintained that he acted in good faith, distinguished Alameda's maximum credit setting from its typical usage, and said he believed Alameda retained positive net asset value despite its multibillion-dollar liability to FTX.

Cross-examination tested those explanations against tweets, recordings, emails, congressional testimony, database records, spreadsheets, and his post-collapse statements. Bankman-Fried acknowledged owning most of Alameda, participating in higher-level trading and hedging discussions, approving or directing investments, knowing of Alameda's unusually large credit line and liquidation treatment, and learning that Alameda owed FTX more than $10 billion. He qualified the scope and context of many statements and denied recognizing fraudulent intent. On redirect, he emphasized his understanding of margin borrowing, contextualized public and private statements, acknowledged poor oversight of the payment-agent relationship and a major risk-management mistake, and explained his actions during and after the collapse.

The court permitted limited evidence that lawyers helped prepare FTX's data-retention policy, excluded four other lawyer-drafted-document items, and declined to categorically prohibit later use of his prior hearing testimony. In closing, the prosecution argued that the evidence showed deliberate use and concealment of customer assets and asked the jury to reject the asserted good-faith, eventual-repayment, and spot-margin explanations.