SBF’s defense seeks to highlight Gary Wang and Nishad Singh’s ‘Inconsistent statement’ 


Most read

Loading Most Ready posts..


  • In a fit to win over the jury and get their client a lenient sentence, SBF’s defense team intends to paint Caroline Ellison’s, Gary Wang and Nishad Singh’s testimonies as ‘inconsistent statements.’
  • SBF’s team has zoomed in on Signh’s haziness between June and July last year before his testimony.
  • Reports have it that SBF will take the stand to defend his “financial dignity’ in the ongoing trial. That will sure be a moment for crypto community members to pay attention to. Will he outgrow his fraud image?

The FTX legal battle representing SBF has been in the spotlight amid new developments in the case that have set the crypto world in awe. In a dramatic turn, the SBF legal defense team has made its intentions clear on claiming ‘inconsistent statements’ made by the prosecution witnesses who took the stand last week. 

Among them are FTX ex-officials Nishad Singh and Gary Wang. Bankman-Fried is currently facing allegations, including regulatory compliance issues and market manipulation. However, his defense team has taken to discredit the witness’s credibility. 

The ‘inconsistent statement’ claim by SBF defense 

Sam Bankman-Fried’s defense team tried to plead with the presiding Judge Lewis Kaplan to provide proof of an ‘inconsistent statement’ from the former FTX executives. The defense team has zeroed in on the witnesses who said concerning the financial situation of FTX and their comments on stablecoins. 

The defense also sought to decipher info on how SBF’s Alameda Research was allowed to borrow unlimited funds from the FTX crypto exchange. 

They also zoomed in on Signh’s haziness between June and July last year before his testimony. SBF’s team highlighted his initial testimony with the federal official before he took the stand. 

Two FBI agents are also set to take the stand as part of the defense witnesses to discuss their notes on the FTX investigation on conversations with Singh and Wang during their arrest.

As such, the defense seeks to present notes on these conversations by including the agents involved, noting that their testimonies do not coincide. According to the defense filing:

On October 21, Mr. Bankman-Fried’s counsel advised the Government that it would seek to introduce evidence of Mr. Wang’s and Mr. Singh’s prior inconsistent statements.

SBF’s Defense filing

Wang had also testified that he couldn’t recall whether he talked about his market maker role in Alameda Research, and this did not align with his conversation in November 2022. In his discussion with law enforcement last year, he also spoke about stablecoins being part of the market-making function. However, he says he does not recall this conversation. 

Singh also made inconsistent statements on how well he recalled the events in July 2022 from June, and the filing highlights this. The filing states that he did not remember telling investigators if he felt OK about purchasing a house after the collapse of FTX in January. 

The filing details

However, one question remains: Will Sam Bankman-Fried take the stand? The former FTX CEO will be part of the witnesses to testify against the criminal fraud case. Following the intended presentation of its case on October 26, Cohen stated that SBF lawyers, Judge Lewis Kaplan, and the prosecution talked about SBF’s take to the stand in a telephone call on October 25. 

Based on Judge Kaplan’s comments on allowing the case to go straight through and move from the prosecution’s final witness to the defense’s first one. 

Also, according to Cohen, the defense team will not take more than 72 hours to question the three witnesses named as their witnesses. These would include Joseph Pimbley, who would testify on the responsibilities of former FTX employees. 

Judge Kaplan hinted that the witness’s testimony would take less than 30 minutes, excluding Sam Bankman-Fried’s testimony. Assistant US Attorney Nicolas Roos made other comments on the recent developments. He was quoted saying:

 The government has a single substantive wire fraud count related to customers, and the theory is that the defendant [SBF] made false representations and was in a trust relationship with depositors and took money. I think there is certainly an element to which these are very intertwined to the extent that the false representations created an impression of trust and confidence amongst the victims of the crime.

US Attorney Nicolas Roos

Disclaimer. The information provided is not trading advice. Cryptopolitan.com holds no liability for any investments made based on the information provided on this page. We strongly recommend independent research and/or consultation with a qualified professional before making any investment decision.

Share link:

Florence Muchai

Florence is a crypto enthusiast and writer who loves to travel. As a digital nomad, she explores the transformative power of blockchain technology. Her writing reflects the limitless possibilities for humanity to connect and grow.

Stay on top of crypto news, get daily updates in your inbox

Related News

Subscribe to CryptoPolitan