Following the jury’s disqualification, former cryptocurrency CEO Sam Bankman-Fried has been testifying before a judge in his trial.
Judge Lewis Kaplan invited the former business owner to confer with him in order to decide which portions of his testimony may be shown to the jury.
The 31-year-old is charged with embezzling money from clients of his now-defunct cryptocurrency exchange, FTX, and misrepresenting to lenders and investors.
He argued that he was acting in good faith and in accordance with legal guidance.
In order to determine which parts, if any, of Mr. Bankman-Fried’s testimony would be allowed as evidence, the court sent the jury home.
With this action, Mr. Bankman-Fried and the attorneys were able to rehearse before he may address the jury.
Prosecutors had questioned several of Mr. Bankman-Fried’s judgments, such as having some group discussions automatically deleted. He claimed that this was in line with the record-keeping guidelines established by his legal counsel.
In addition to the personal loans he obtained from Alameda, he claimed to have explored numerous other arrangements with his lawyers, including the latter’s function as a “payments processor” for FTX.
“Did you take comfort from the fact that lawyers had structured the loans?” Mark Cohen, Mr. Bankman Fried’s lawyer, inquired. “Yes, without a doubt,” Mr. Bankman-Fried answered.
He continued by saying that he had trusted his legal counsel to draft bank account applications on his firms’ behalf. “I trusted that they were proper forms,” he stated.
Attorneys’ claims that Mr. Bankman-Fried followed legal advice have been refuted by prosecutors, who contend that it doesn’t matter if the lawyers weren’t fully informed.
Though the judge did not make a decision right away regarding Mr. Bankman-Fried’s admissibility as a witness, he did issue a warning that he was “dubious” about many of the points.
At first, Mr. Bankman-Fried talked with clarity and assurance, but faltered when prosecutor Danielle Sassoon questioned him about when he had visited attorneys and what he had told them when he had.
Mr. Bankman-Fried was once told by Judge Kaplan to “listen to the question and answer directly.”
When asked if he believed Alameda had the authority to use FTX client monies, Mr. Bankman Fried said, “I wouldn’t phrase it that way but… yes.”
Ms. Sassoon asked him to cite specific text from a policy between the two firms that gave him that notion, but more than a minute went by. Finally, he indicated that the money might “be held and/or transferred” by pointing to a line.
Judge Lewis Kaplan’s decision regarding what Mr. Bankman-Fried may present to the jury is expected on Friday.
Dozens of interested onlookers, including screenwriters and retirees, as well as others captivated by the former billionaire’s stunning ascent and descent, descended onto the courtroom for Mr. Bankman-expected Fried’s appearance.
His court appearance in New York comes after 12 days of prosecution testimony from former close colleagues.
He might receive a life sentence in prison if he is proved guilty.
In the United States, defendants are not required to testify during court proceedings; in fact, they are frequently counseled against it because it exposes them to prosecution interrogation.
It also provides an opportunity for the jury members who will render the verdict to create their own opinions, which may not be favorable.
A former federal prosecutor who has been following the trial, Jacob Frenkel, told the BBC earlier this month that “if the jury does not believe him, it’s a guaranteed conviction.”
Notwithstanding the dangers, a lot of observers after the trial assumed Mr. Bankman-Fried would testify to provide his own account of what happened and attempt to refute the prosecution’s version of events.