FTX Lawyers Under Scrutiny Over $200 Million Alameda Loans

• U.S. Judge Kaplan requires permission to mention FTX lawyers in the trial.

• Gary Wang’s testimony reveals $300M in personal loans from Alameda.

• Defense emphasizes FTX lawyers’ role in structuring and executing loans.

Bankman-fried’s defense seeks clarity

In a recent development, Sam Bankman-Fried’s legal team is pushing to investigate the alleged role of FTX lawyers in issuing $200 million worth of loans from Alameda. This move comes after an Oct. 1 court decision that temporarily prevented Bankman-Fried from attributing any blame to FTX lawyers for their purported involvement in the loan structuring between Alameda and FTX.

Government’s stance on FTX lawyers’ involvement

U.S. Judge Lewis Kaplan sided with the government, ruling that any mention of FTX lawyers’ involvement during the trial would require prior permission. This decision was based on the premise that the defense must establish a clear connection between the lawyers and the loan transactions.

Gary Wang’s testimony sheds light

The defense’s request for permission was fueled by the cross-examination of Gary Wang, former FTX co-founder, on Oct. 9. The government’s line of questioning revealed that Wang had received personal loans amounting to $300 million from Alameda. FTX utilized these funds for venture investments and by Wang for a property purchase in the Bahamas. Wang disclosed that either Bankman-Fried or FTX lawyers presented him with these loans, which he subsequently signed.

Defense’s argument on FTX lawyers’ role

Bankman-Fried’s attorneys have countered by emphasizing the prosecution’s acknowledgment of FTX lawyers’ presence during the loan structuring and execution. The defense plans to delve deeper into the extent of the lawyers’ involvement. They believe that the promissory notes documenting the loans to Wang could be pivotal. Wang had previously conveyed to the prosecution that he didn’t anticipate FTX lawyers pressuring him into signing unlawful agreements. The defense stated, “Mr. Wang’s understanding that these were actual loans – structured by lawyers and memorialized in formal promissory notes that imposed real interest payment obligations – is relevant to rebut the inference that these were simply sham loans directed by Mr. Bankman-Fried to conceal the source of the funds.”

Conclusion

The unfolding events surrounding the alleged involvement of FTX lawyers in the Alameda loans have added another layer of complexity to the case. As the trial progresses, the role of FTX lawyers and the legitimacy of the loans will undoubtedly be under intense scrutiny. The defense’s pursuit of clarity on this matter will be pivotal in shaping the trial’s outcome.