Jailed FTX Founder Faces New Charges
On Monday, federal US prosecutors filed a new indictment against the founder of bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange FTX, Sam Bankman-Fried, charging the 31-year-old with seven counts of conspiracy and fraud.
Facts
- On Monday, federal US prosecutors filed a new indictment against the founder of bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange FTX, Sam Bankman-Fried, charging the 31-year-old with seven counts of conspiracy and fraud.1
- According to the indictment, Bankman-Fried used stolen customer funds to make over $100M in campaign contributions before the 2022 US midterm elections.2
- In addition, the indictment alleges Bankman-Fried used connections with politicians and government officials "to falsely burnish the public image of FTX as a legitimate exchange."3
- On Friday, a US judge revoked Bankman-Fried's $250M bail citing reasonable suspicion that the former billionaire attempted to influence witnesses on at least two occasions.4
- The FTX founder is additionally accused of using billions of dollars from FTX investors to compensate for losses at his Alameda Research hedge fund.5
- Bankman-Fried, previously under house arrest at his parent's residence in Palo Alto, California, was handcuffed and taken to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York, after the ruling.6
Sources: 1Al Jazeera, 2Guardian, 3ABC News, 4NPR Online News, 5Daily Mail, and 6New York Times.
Narratives
- Narrative A, as provided by MarketWatch. It's Bankman-Fried's First Amendment right to make sure his reputation as a crypto wiz isn't dragged through the mud — he's entitled to speak with journalists or anyone that can help his cause. It's already been made difficult for him to prepare his defense, due to limitations on his internet and phone usage. His sentence should be overturned upon appeal.
- Narrative B, as provided by Slate. Bankman-Fried had a cushy setup that most of those criminally charged would only dream off, yet he proceeded to violate several restrictions placed on him while he awaited trial. His entitlement got the best of him, and no judge could ignore how his actions might potentially affect his ability to receive a fair trial. He must be held accountable.