The trial of Sam Bankman-Fried, the former CEO of the now-defunct crypto exchange FTX, entered a crucial phase on October 31, as the prosecution cross-examined the defendant. During this intense questioning, Bankman-Fried sought to present his own version of events surrounding the operations of the crypto exchange. However, the ultimate judgment lies in the hands of the jury, who must now assess the credibility of his narrative.

Bankman-Fried’s Asserts Limited Knowledge of Key Issues

In an attempt to sow seeds of doubt, the accused feigned ignorance to various questions concerning the activities at both FTX and Alameda Research, the associated trading firm. The prosecution had previously alleged that Bankman-Fried was not only aware of but also orchestrated illicit activities within these organizations.

One specific focus of the cross-examination revolved around a bug in the fiat account. When asked if his employees had informed him about it, Bankman-Fried claimed he became aware of it by chance, overhearing their conversation. However, he stated that due to other pressing matters, he was unable to address the situation directly.

When pressed further about his lack of follow-up, the defendant explained that he entrusted his employees with resolving the issue, as they had assured him they were working on it. Bankman-Fried emphasized the collaborative nature of the crypto exchange, highlighting that tasks were delegated amongst the team members, and he did not carry sole responsibility for handling every aspect.

Bankman-Fried’s Lack of Clarity Regarding Alameda

Continuing the line of questioning, the FTX founder was asked about the decision-making process at Alameda, where he claimed to be unaware of certain occurrences despite being the CEO at the time. He pointed to Caroline Ellison, a former associate and the ex-CEO of Alameda, as the individual responsible for trading decisions when the contentious North Dimension account was established.

However, the defendant inadvertently raised doubts about his judgment by suggesting that he believed customer deposits were being cleverly managed within the framework of risk management. Following this statement, he swiftly emphasized his concern for customers’ portfolios during his tenure as Alameda CEO, seemingly aiming to display a sense of good faith.

Nevertheless, Bankman-Fried acknowledged that he may not have been as diligent as he should have been while serving as the CEO of FTX. His testimony unintentionally supports the claims made by former associates, who contended that he did not exercise complete control over the operations of both companies.

Trial Progression and Verdict Anticipation

Looking ahead, the trial is scheduled to resume on November 1, with the defense expected to conclude their case this week. Subsequently, the proceedings will enter the rebuttal phase. It is projected that the trial will reach its conclusion by the end of the following week, at which point the jury will deliver their verdict.

While Bankman-Fried has skillfully worked to challenge the prosecution’s assertions during the trial, the ultimate decision rests with the jury. Only time will reveal if his narrative resonates with them or if the prosecution’s arguments prove more persuasive.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this research report is for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as financial or investment advice. The NFT and cryptocurrency market is highly volatile, and readers should conduct thorough research before making any investment decisions.