Transcripts of Tumultuous Testimonies
In a courtroom drama that could rival a Hollywood script, Sam Bankman-Fried, the former head honcho of FTX, found himself under the probing gaze of prosecutor Danielle Sassoon during a recent closed-door testimony. It was on the fateful date of October 26 when SBF attempted to justify his decision to use encrypted messaging to discuss corporate affairs. This revelation brought forth a slew of eyebrow-raising questions, especially regarding the messages he seemingly wished to erase from history.
Signal with Approval (or Not)
When questioned about his preference for the encrypted messaging app Signal, SBF claimed he was merely following the orders of FTX counsel Daniel Friedberg. However, his defense quickly spiraled into murky waters when it became clear that he hadn’t sought approval to enable the app’s auto-delete feature. “At some point, I remember changing my toggle to one-week auto-delete,” he stated, which sounds a lot like a tech-savvy confession of “oops, my bad” rather than a sound legal strategy.
The Incredibly Vague Document Retention Policy
The crux of SBF’s justification revolved around a purported company document retention policy. He maintained that this policy, which purportedly came into existence in 2021, only covered emails. Talk about a loophole! Sassoon grilled him with pointed questions about whether any legal advice had been sought regarding specific message deletions. The response? A simple, “Not specifically.” As clear as mud!
Memory: The First Thing to Go?
SBF earnestly apologized during the questioning for his fuzzy recollections. “I wish I had that [document retention] policy now. My memory…” he lamented. It seems he might need to brush up on both his memory and his understanding of corporate governance. The importance of keeping records in business isn’t exactly new-age philosophy, right?
Counting on Context
Discussing the infamous “fake” balance sheets prepared by none other than Caroline Ellison, SBF claimed that it was permissible to delete discussions since “verbal discussions were not required to be reported.” If only legal cases could be settled with a mere verbal handshake! But on the topic of a $13 billion discrepancy in the exchange’s balance sheet, his reasoning veered off course. “I was concerned that statements could be taken out of context, that it could be embarrassing,” he remarked. In other words, if it was messy, just hit the delete button!
Final Thoughts: What Lies Ahead
As the legal saga progresses, one has to wonder: will lessons be learned from these foggy recollections and missing messages? Or are we simply witnessing a masterclass in corporate miscommunication? Either way, it’s a story that continues to unfold, oftentimes with more twists and turns than one could anticipate!
+ There are no comments
Add yours