Sam Bankman-Fried’s legal team is requesting permission to cross-examine Gary Wang regarding the involvement of FTX attorneys in Alameda loan approvals.
Sam Bankman-Fried’s legal team is requesting permission to investigate the alleged involvement of FTX attorneys in issuing $200 million in loans from Alameda, which Gary Wang approved.
A court ruling issued on October 1 precluded Bankman-Fried from assigning blame to FTX attorneys who allegedly participated in structuring and authorizing loans between Alameda and FTX.
The United States District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan granted the government’s petition and ruled that Bankman-Fried’s legal team must seek permission before mentioning the involvement of FTX attorneys throughout the trial.
Following the prosecution’s initial cross-examination of former FTX co-founder Gary Wang on October 9, the defense is now requesting permission to cross-examine Wang regarding the alleged involvement of FTX counsel in structuring loans issued to FTX by Alameda.
A letter dated October 9 highlighted the government’s interrogation of Wang regarding a series of up to $300 million in personal loans from Alameda that FTX used to finance venture investments. Wang had also purchased a property in the Bahamas with a portion of the funds.
Wang stated during the prosecution’s line of questioning that either Bankman-Fried or FTX attorneys had presented him with loans and instructed him to sign them.
The attorneys for Bankman-Fried argue that the prosecution has already established that FTX attorneys were present and involved in the structuring and execution of the loans.
They intend to pursue their own line of questioning regarding the extent of FTX counsel involvement.
The defense adds that it could conceivably introduce promissory notes that memorialized the loans to Wang, who previously told the prosecution in proffer meetings that he did not believe FTX attorneys would coerce him into signing illegal agreements.
“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.”
