Sam Bankman-Fried’s (SBF) authorized staff mentioned his testimony would middle on his understanding of trade practices and the switch of FTX belongings to Bahamian authorities following the corporate’s collapse final yr.

SBF’s testimony may also make clear his understanding of whether or not authorized professionals performed a task in varied features of FTX’s operations and his information of the trade and Alameda’s monetary well being.

Moreover, the protection will assert that SBF’s actions have been carried out in “good religion” and weren’t motivated by any intent to deceive clients or buyers.

SBF’s ‘good religion’ efforts

SBF’s testimony is predicted to delve into specifics such because the trade legal professionals’ information of firm insurance policies, financial institution accounts, and the FTX/Alameda relationship, amongst different particulars, together with auto-deletion insurance policies.

In keeping with his authorized staff, the corporate’s in-house counsel was concerned in making these selections that the prosecution had interpreted as proof of SBF’s felony intent.

Thus, SBF’s testimony will allegedly make clear “his understanding as to what the attorneys have been current for, what their duties have been, what data they have been supplied, and the influence of his information of their involvement on his perception that his conduct was always correct and lawful.”

SBF’s try to make use of the “information of counsel” protection throughout his opening remarks had been denied by Decide Lewis Kaplan as a result of it risked prejudicing the jury.

Moreover, the protection plans to question Bankman-Fried’s understanding of particular trade practices, primarily omnibus wallets, which might present his good religion and lack of felony intent.

Lastly, the protection goals to display how SBF’s authorization to switch FTX’s belongings to the Bahamian authorities was one other motion made in good religion. This might be accomplished by rebutting testimony supplied by FTX’s former Chief Expertise Officer Gary Wang, who alleged that SBF acted in a bid to retain management of the collapsed firm.

The protection counsel argued that the Bankman-Fried’s determination was primarily based on the assumption that Bahamian authorities prioritized clients’ greatest pursuits, and it was accomplished to resolve conflicts of curiosity involving in-house counsel and exterior chapter counsel.