Nishad Singh’s cross-examination and redirect addressed Alameda’s borrowing, the fiat@ftx accounting bug, political-donation funding, and his purchase of an Orcas Island home. The court also considered disputes over exhibits for proposed financial testimony. FBI agent Richard Busick explained cell-site location analysis and acknowledged that the records could not identify the phone’s user.
Full day summary
Defense counsel continued Nishad Singh’s cross-examination about Alameda’s borrowing, FTX code, political-donation funding, and his own conduct. Singh testified that he first knew he had acted wrongfully when he helped doctor Serum staking-fee revenue in December 2021. He distinguished that event from his June 2022 suspicions about Alameda’s borrowing and his September understanding that the money was not there. He described the June inquiry into the fiat@ftx accounting bug, said Gary Wang calculated its effect at about $8 billion, and clarified that assurances concerned tracking the full account balance rather than separately tracking the bug’s changing effect.
Singh also discussed proposals to close Alameda’s accounts, a contemplated but uncompleted backdated token trade, and his $3.7 million Orcas Island home. He acknowledged buying the home after knowing the purchase drew on customer funds and characterized his spending as egregious, unnecessary, and selfish. On redirect, after a limiting instruction concerning campaign-finance offenses, Singh identified Sam Bankman-Fried and Ryan Salame as his co-conspirators. He explained his forfeiture of the house, described a $477 million options loan as a paper transaction, and said political-donation transfers were not really loans because they lacked paperwork, prior discussion, and consistent treatment as repayment obligations.
The court separately considered objections to exhibits proposed for Professor Peter Easton’s financial testimony. The defense challenged the timing and disclosure of underlying data and argued that some charts incorporated expert conclusions or tracing assumptions. The court reserved decision on one exhibit, rejected categorical exclusion of all non-evidentiary material referenced in demonstratives, and directed the parties to narrow their disputes.
FBI Special Agent Richard Busick then explained historical cell-site analysis and offered qualified opinions that a phone number attributed in an admitted email to Bankman-Fried was near several Manhattan locations. He emphasized that the records identified connected antennas rather than the phone’s exact position. On cross-examination, he confirmed that the records could not establish who was using the phone or reveal call contents.