Bankrupt exchange FTX founder SBF appeared in court last night to testify in his criminal trial. While SBF has been trying to describe FTX’s collapse as an “unavoidable accident” and has publicly defended himself multiple times, his court appearance is seen as a risky choice by many lawyers.
When the hearing began, he calmly answered questions from defense lawyers, attributing FTX’s collapse to the company’s legal affairs in an attempt to shift responsibility. However, when the prosecutor began questioning, the situation changed.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon asked sharp questions to SBF. Sassoon presented the “Payment Agency Agreement” between FTX and Alameda Research, asking SBF to point out which part of the agreement clearly stipulated that Alameda could use funds from FTX clients.
SBF spent nearly two minutes quickly reviewing the documents and pointed to a section without confidence, admitting that he is not a lawyer and cannot confirm if his interpretation is correct. During the interaction with the prosecutor, SBF’s answers were hesitant and uncertain, contrasting with his past fluency. He often needed time to think before providing a suitable response and repeatedly stated “I don’t remember” as a vague answer.
For example, when asked if he remembered the conversation about “the company’s $13 billion funding gap” described by Nishad Singh in his testimony, SBF only replied, “I don’t remember,” making his position in the trial more difficult.
According to Zombit’s previous reports, Judge Lewis Kaplan had prohibited SBF’s team from presenting defenses that shifted responsibility to FTX’s legal team without explicit court permission.
However, during Thursday’s hearing, as the jury had been sent home early, this issue became a focal point of discussion. The prosecutor emphasized FTX’s practice of automatically deleting certain internal communication records, suggesting that SBF and his team may have been concealing information.
According to SBF, this policy was actually formulated by an external general counsel he hired, which required him to enable the automatic deletion of chat records in the Signal application. Additionally, SBF stated that FTX’s terms of use and banking arrangements with Alameda were designed by his lawyers.
SBF’s testimony explicitly mentioned general counsel Dan Friedberg and the external law firm Fenwick & West, stating that they had formulated many questioned documents and policies.
When SBF testified today, the jury was not present, which was a special decision by the judge who wanted to hear part of FTX founder’s testimony to determine which content is applicable, an uncommon measure. The judge said before dismissing the jury, “It may surprise you a bit, but you can rest for the remaining time today.”
Judge Kaplan stated that he rarely makes such decisions over the years and informed them that the case is likely to conclude early next week. Additionally, after the U.S. Department of Justice recessed, SBF’s lawyer Mark Cohen attempted to request dismissal of the prosecutor’s charges, arguing that the evidence provided by the prosecutor so far is insufficient to support a guilty verdict, but this request was ultimately rejected by the judge.