USA v. Samuel Bankman-Fried Court Filing, retrieved on March 15, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 17 of 33. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here C. The Bankruptcy Fraud Enhancement Is Applicable Bankman-Fried objects to the two-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(B), which applies to an offense that involved “a misrepresentation or other fraudulent action during the course of a bankruptcy proceeding,” id. (See Def. Mem. at 24). Specifically, he claims that because he did not make any false statements in the bankruptcy proceeding, the enhancement does not apply. (Id.). But this enhancement is supported by facts and law. The defendant directed Wang to transfer assets to regulators in The Bahamas, despite the existence of a U.S. bankruptcy and a directive from attorneys not to do so. Specifically, Wang testified that on November 12, 2022—the day after FTX’s bankruptcy—the defendant asked Wang to drive with him to The Bahamas Securities Commission. (Tr. 465). During that drive, the defendant told Wang that “ideally [they] should transfer [customer assets] to the Bahamas liquidators or the Bahamas regulators.” (Id.). The reason the defendant wanted to transfer FTX assets to Bahamas authorities, as opposed to the U.S. bankruptcy, is because “they seemed friendly and seemed willing to let [the defendant] stay in control of the company.” (Tr. 465-66, 471). Once they got to The Bahamas Securities Commission, the defendant, his father, and his attorney met with the Securities Commission, while Wang waited. (Tr. 466). According to the defendant’s attorney, Krystal Rolle, the meeting, which began at noon, went for a little under three hours, and then they left and went back to the FTX offices. (Tr. 2089-90). She did not testify about what was discussed at the meeting. But according to Wang, the defendant said, “the meeting went well,” “the securities commission believed … things he told her,” and “they were going to order us to transfer the assets … to the Bahamas.” (Tr. 466). While the defendant and Wang were driving back to FTX’s offices, the defendant said that the “bankruptcy lawyers that had taken over FTX” in the United States were “asking [him] to finish transferring the remaining assets to the U.S., and [the defendant] told [Wang] that [they] should try to stall them.” (Tr. 467). Once Bankman-Fried and Wang got back to FTX’s offices, they started working on transferring the assets to the Bahamas authorities. (Tr. 467, 2090). According to Rolle, at some point they were shown an order on a laptop that purported to require the transfer of the assets to the Bahamas authorities. (Tr. 2090). Then, over several hours, until approximately 2 a.m., Wang and the defendant transferred the remaining customer assets to the Bahamas authorities. (Tr. 2098). The process took a while because the Bahamian regulators were struggling to figure out how to do a cryptocurrency transfer. (Tr. 467). While Wang and the defendant were transferring the assets, they received instructions from the U.S. bankruptcy attorneys not to transfer assets to the Bahamian regulators. (Id.). Over a Signal chat, the defendant told the U.S. bankruptcy team that The Bahamas Securities Commission was directing them to transfer the assets to them. (GX-543; Tr. 469). Ryne Miller, an attorney for FTX who was working with the U.S. bankruptcy team, instructed Bankman-Fried, who by that time was no longer an executive of FTX, that there was “a significant question of who owns the assets” and that the defendant “cannot transfer any funds that are the subject of the bankruptcy estate.” (GX-543). Miller added, “Before folks transfer to Bahamas, absolutely consult with me and I will bring in the appropriate counsel.” (Id.). The defendant, however, instructed Wang to “ignore the instructions and continue transferring the funds.” (Tr. 470). Ultimately, millions of dollars in assets were transferred. This evidence established the following facts, which are a basis for this enhancement: (1) the defendant knew about the existence of a bankruptcy proceeding in the United States; (2) he came up with the idea to transfer customer assets to the Bahamian regulators before he met with his lawyer or the regulators; (3) his purpose in transferring the assets to them was to curry favor so as to stay in control of the company; (4) he was told by the U.S. bankruptcy team not to transfer assets to the Bahamas without further discussion; and (5) the defendant instructed Wang to ignore the U.S. bankruptcy team and to continue to transfer assets, thereby shielding them from the U.S. bankruptcy process. That is a legally sufficient basis to impose this enhancement. United States v. Simpson, 796 F.3d 548, 555 (5th Cir. 2015) (affirming application of the § 2B1.1(b)(9)(B) enhancement where the defendant “transferred” assets to a third party “with the intent of shielding … assets from creditors”). The enhancement need not be premised exclusively on making a false statement in a bankruptcy proceeding or violating a court order. The defendant has cited no law cabining the enhancement to such a narrow set of facts. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on March 15, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. storage.courtlistener Lead image . source

Not So Fast: Court Fires at SBF for Transferring Assets During Bankruptcy Proceedings

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

DOE v. Github: Code Stored on GitHub Ultimately Belong to Their Authors

Government Advocates for Severe Sanction in Bankman-Fried Case

Proposed Strategy for Compensating Bankman-Fried's Victims: Remission Over Restitution

Court Imposes $10 Billion Forfeiture Judgement on Sam Bankman-Fried

Exploring the Legal Basis for Criminal Forfeiture

Understanding Sentencing Guidelines in White Collar Crimes

DOE v. Github: Code Stored on GitHub Ultimately Belong to Their Authors

Government Advocates for Severe Sanction in Bankman-Fried Case

Proposed Strategy for Compensating Bankman-Fried's Victims: Remission Over Restitution

Court Imposes $10 Billion Forfeiture Judgement on Sam Bankman-Fried

Exploring the Legal Basis for Criminal Forfeiture

Understanding Sentencing Guidelines in White Collar Crimes

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps