Ex-Alameda CEO Ellison Emerges as Central Figure at Bankman-Fried Trial (opens in new tab)

It seems undeniable they were stealing from people and she knew and was part of the operation. She is likely going to get a minimal sentence by cooperating with the prosecution. The only ethical person in the room resigned as soon as he realized what FTX and Alameda were doing according to his testimony in court today. SBF managing to give his girlfriend much less compensation in stolen money than his father seems like a minor lapse compared to all the other actual criminal acts going on here.

Sam Trabucco joined later but made much more. It's strange that she would take such a risk for a meagre 6 million, and presumably knowing about Alameda's finances and profitability. Maybe she was not that into money and had other motivations...

> Look at the total compensation numbers for everyone involved.

I looked again but I don't see these in the article.

Do you have a link for this? I haven't followed the trial closely.

You are right that dating at work can lead to a lot of drama and should be avoided.

That being said, that was not the problem at FTX/Alemeda. The problem with FTX was it was a fraud. San Bankman-Fried speculated with customer money while lying about what he was doing. FTX explicitly stated it did not speculate with customer money on its web site.

Or, you know, do not steal billions from your customers.

Eh, the article is extremely unclear as to what the context is surrounding the assertion since opening statements should be finished on the day after the jury is empaneled, and so "when it's their turn" could refer to either opening statements (which is aimed at essentially nobody but more of an outline of the case from each side for the jury) or cross examination (which might be a bit early, but not impossible, but certainly would be directed at Ellison specifically).

It's impossible to tell without transcripts or at the very least better reporting, but the whole "it was someone else's fault" defense tends to work better when that someone else openly admits that it's their fault instead of the other way around. Federal prosecutors, in any case, don't fall for that anymore, although it is still very very very occasionally seen in state courts where a witness given immunity testifies that they were the guilty party when the issue involves identification and the act can only involve either/or and not both potential codefendants and there are no witnesses. Those are the types of cases that the feds would much rather decline prosecution to let the state prosecutors have their shot if they don't think they can get a plea anyhow. Cases where the feds are willing to go to trial on are almost always cases where defense ends up trying to mitigate instead of going for a straight acquittal on all counts, especially since this is really just a fraud/money laundering case and there's little chance of the government making their case too complicated for the jury. SBF not taking a plea is frankly idiotic but then again, the first murder trial I've been part of the defense for, we worked our asses off and got a hung jury, prosecutor offered a manslaughter 2, time served, which is as close to a win for us as we can get outside of acquittal, but the client adamantly refused and retrial on the same evidence got the kid 28 years so, lead a horse to water, etc.