SBF’s testimony: FTX founder struck by amnesia during cross-examination

In today’s hearing, SBF believed that most of his actions related to conversations with FTX’s executives were in line with the retention policy drafted by the Chief Regulatory Officer
However, there is no record of the policy that was used as a defense argument that SBF did what lawyers suggested

The criminal trial against FTX’s founder – Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) – continues to take the spotlight in all its grandeur. The latest development has SBF himself presiding on a testimony bench.

Today’s (26 October) hearing would determine whether or not the legal advice SBF received while reigning the firm was relevant to the case. Notably, this hearing took place without the jurors’ presence in court. The Judge dismissed them by saying it “doesn’t concern you.” After today’s hearing, the Judge would make a call on the relevant aspects the jury needs to hear.

SBF on Slack and Signal conversations

The testimony began with Bankman-Fried speaking about the communication channels deployed by FTX employees. Platforms such as Slack and Signal were listed by the former CEO, who remarked that they provided “more interactivity,” as per Bloomberg’s reporting.

Additionally, he claimed that the firm needed to use encrypted messaging applications. This was because there were external risks such as “constant hacking attacks”. Although he did note that the firm was never subjected to a “core breach.” However, the situation was quite the contrary for unnamed third parties with ties to FTX.

Furthermore, SBF brought up Dan Friedberg – an ex-FTX lawyer, and his role in the exchange. The former Chief Regulatory Officer previously came under the spotlight for being the “fixer” of the crypto exchange. In a lawsuit filed by the current FTX regime, Friedberg allegedly helped SBF in the “wholesale raiding of customer exchange deposits.”

He also allegedly whitewashed complaints by whistleblowers about the misuse of customer funds. The former executive even went to the extent of paying “exorbitant hush money” to one former employee.