- Lawyers representing Sam Bankman-Fried have called for FBI testimony to expose inconsistencies in the statements made by Gary Wang and Nishad Singh, potentially strengthening the defense.
- The legal team is aiming to introduce initial FBI interviews into evidence, highlighting the discrepancies and raising questions about the reliability of key witnesses.
In a strategic maneuver, the defense team representing Sam Bankman-Fried, the high-profile cryptocurrency entrepreneur facing legal scrutiny, has requested the presence of FBI special agents Luke Booth and Kristin Allain in court. With Bankman-Fried set to testify himself shortly, the defense is working diligently to highlight inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses, Gary Wang, former co-founder, and Nishad Singh, head of engineering.
Exposing Inconsistencies: A Closer Look at Witness Testimonies
Documents have brought to light discrepancies between the statements made by Wang and Singh in court and what they had initially reported to the FBI. Notably, both Wang and Singh have previously entered guilty pleas in relation to the ongoing case, and have since been collaborating with the government in its legal pursuits against Bankman-Fried.
However, the defense has pinpointed numerous instances where the testimonies of Wang and Singh have either contradicted their previous statements or showcased a lapse in memory. This has raised significant concerns about their credibility as principal witnesses.
Highlighting specific examples, Wang had originally informed the FBI about a unique feature incorporated into Alameda for market-making purposes. Nevertheless, his in-court statements alluded to additional functionalities of this feature. Additionally, there have been moments in court where both witnesses struggled to recall specific details from their FBI interviews, further complicating matters.
The defense suggests that external pressures may be influencing Wang, potentially leading him to minimize explanations about specific codebase features that favored Alameda and, by extension, could serve to vindicate Bankman-Fried.
Singh’s testimony also presents areas of contention, particularly when comparing his initial description of his memories from summer 2022, labeled as
“hazy”
during the FBI interview, to the clear and detailed account he later provided in court. The defense posits that this shift may be attributed to Singh’s perceived obligation to support the government’s narrative.
The Property Acquisition Discrepancy
A notable point of divergence in testimonies relates to Singh’s property acquisition—a $3.7 million house in the Bahamas—shortly before the collapse of FTX. While Singh did not express concern over this purchase during the FBI interview, his courtroom demeanor shifted, labeling the acquisition as
“egregious, unnecessary, and selfish.”
The defense holds that these contradictions could play a pivotal role in undermining the credibility of Wang and Singh as witnesses. In doing so, they aim to fortify the argument that Bankman-Fried acted in good faith, directly challenging the prosecution’s foundational claims.
