SBF’s lawyer counters claims on FTX’s expenditure

It was a high-tension environment as SBF’s defense vehemently contested allegations about his supposedly reckless spending at the now-defunct FTX crypto exchange.

In a courtroom drama filled with sharp exchanges and unexpected revelations, former FTX executive Nishad Singh found himself on the receiving end of pointed cross-examination by Mark Cohen, SBF’s lead defense attorney.

Cohen’s aim? To dismantle the notion that SBF’s spending was purely wasteful and without strategic intent.

Questionable Sponsorships or Strategic Moves?

A sizable portion of the prosecution’s argument hinges on the claim that FTX’s massive commitments, particularly towards celebrity sponsorships, epitomized “reckless and frivolous” spending.

These claims seem mostly driven by the enormous figures involved, such as the whopping $130 million that FTX shelled out for naming rights to the NBA’s Miami Heat’s home ground. But Cohen was quick to put that figure in perspective.

He stressed the longevity of these deals. The Miami agreement, for instance, spanned an impressive 19 years. Thus, the actual yearly outlay in 2021 stood at a far more modest $14 million.

Singh, who has already admitted guilt to fraud and campaign finance violations, didn’t seem to deny the efficacy of some of SBF’s decisions.

While he might’ve been at odds with certain expenditures, he conceded that others played a pivotal role in fortifying FTX’s brand image and business prowess.

The Lifestyle Choices That Raised Eyebrows

Singh’s relationship with SBF and their shared living circumstances further muddied the waters. A $30 million penthouse in the Bahamas became a subject of contention during the trial.

Despite initially expressing reservations about the exorbitant cost of the residence, Singh eventually made the master bedroom his own.

Cohen, never one to miss a beat, was quick to highlight this seeming contradiction. Singh might’ve contemplated moving out, but actions speak louder than words, and he stayed.

Moreover, Singh’s earlier perceptions of SBF’s trading company, Alameda Research, surfaced in court. Initially, Singh believed that special concessions granted to Alameda by FTX aimed at customer protection.

This understanding was rooted in the assumption that it would fortify trade “backstops.” However, cracks in Singh’s narrative appeared when Cohen delved into the timeline of Singh’s awareness concerning Alameda’s utilization of FTX customer assets.

Singh’s assertions of realizing the magnitude of Alameda’s activities only in September 2022 didn’t sit well, especially considering an accounting exercise in June that spotlighted Alameda’s significant negative standing on the exchange.

Singh’s claim of sensing improprieties but choosing inaction due to the influence of his peers seemed less than convincing.

Will SBF Testify? A Lingering Question

With the defense poised to present its case shortly, speculation is rife regarding SBF’s potential testimony. A recent correspondence from his lawyers to the presiding judge hinted at the possibility, but with a catch.

Concerns have arisen about SBF’s ability to focus during proceedings, given that he isn’t receiving his prescribed ADHD medication, Adderall. However, Judge Lewis Kaplan remains unpersuaded and has denied any delay in proceedings based on this issue.

In a courtroom teeming with intricate details, volatile allegations, and ever-changing narratives, one thing is crystal clear: SBF’s legal battle is anything but straightforward.

Whether he’s a reckless spender or a strategic visionary is a debate that will continue to unfold in the coming days. Whatever the outcome, this trial will undeniably leave an indelible mark on the crypto industry.

Source