Behind the 25-year prison sentence: SBF personally tells about the political and judicial struggle behind bankruptcy

Original text: Sam Bankman-Fried Speaks To The New York Sun From Prison,

Compiled by: Odaily Planet Daily jk

Preface

Here is a 45-minute interview with AR Hoffman (hereinafter referred to as AR), deputy editor of The New York Sun, with a 45-minute interview with former cryptocurrency billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried. At the peak of his cryptocurrency exchange FTX, SBF was once considered to be the richest person in the world.

However, with the collapse of FTX and its affiliate Alameda Research, everything collapsed in an instant. Eventually, Bankman-Fried was convicted of crimes such as fraud and sentenced to 25 years in prison without parole. He has appealed the verdict, insisting that he was pre-profilely guilty and that his company was always solvency and that FTX 's bankruptcy handling also had major mistakes.

The interview was conducted at the Manhattan Detention Center. The following is what SBF said in person, and has only been edited as necessary. All three interviews were conducted on Tuesday, February 18, 2025, 15 minutes each and one hour apart as per prison regulations. The conversation involved his views on the current political situation, his hopes of President Trump’s possible pardon, his reflection on the judge who tried him, and his views on Danielle Sassoon, the prosecutor responsible for prosecuting him. It is worth noting that Sassoon recently resigned for refusing to withdraw his case against New York Mayor Adams.

In addition, SBF also shared his deeper thoughts about his personal experiences—from the feeling of controlling huge wealth to the end of having nothing.

Interview history

AR: Hello Sam. I'm AR. I'm glad to talk to you. I know you have a lot to say, especially about the current political environment. There have been talks about amnesty lately, and your prosecutor, Danielle Sassoon, is also frequently seen in the news. We have limited time, so why not just talk about your opinion? A lot has indeed happened lately.

Sam Bankman-Fried: As you said, my prosecutor has recently made the news due to a conflict with the Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ). The judge I was tried Kaplan is also one of the New York judges appointed by Trump, and the current situation involves a confrontation between the Trump administration’s DOJ and the judicial system left over from the Biden administration. The Justice Department is undergoing major changes, and the president and his team believe that the judicial system has been biased over the past few decades, prosecutors abuse of power, and even the politicization of the Justice Department is intensifying.

AR: Do you think your case is part of this political struggle?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I think that 's just part of it. Obviously, a lot of things happen at the same time, and whenever a high-profile case is involved, the careers of all the officials involved are affected. I don't think my case was heard fairly and justly, especially some of the judge's rulings during the trial. For example, Judge Kaplan allowed the prosecutor to claim to the jury that everyone lost all funds, but in another ruling, he did not allow the defense to refute it…

AR: That is, the court allows the prosecutor to state this way, but prohibits you from clarifying the facts. This is obviously one of the key issues in the trial. This is just one example of many judicial issues. So, how do you view the current turmoil in the Department of Justice, especially the South District Attorney’s Office? Do you think your case reflects a wider range of prosecutor misconduct issues?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I do think my case has something in common with the broader issue. One thing worthy of attention is the sentencing situation of all guilty pleas. There is a Republican who pleaded guilty to only a very small number of charges—frankly, I don’t think anyone is really guilty, and I certainly don’t think he is guilty—but he was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison. This is four times longer than the sentences of the other three guilty confessors combined. And the three confessors were all Democrats. There are obvious signs of politicization, including prosecutors threatening his wife, saying she could be prosecuted for being a Republican congressional candidate if he does not act as the Biden administration’s Justice Department. This is one of the most direct cases of political manipulation.

At the same time, my case also involves many factors. One of them is that people are starting to discover that I am actually working more closely with the Republican Party, much more than the public has known before. I have provided financial support to Republican and conservative organizations, and this information has not been made public before.

AR: Do you think this is part of the story too? The media sometimes report that the amount you donated to the Democrats is astonishing, and donations to the Republicans are only symbolic, or to maintain a superficial balance. Do you think the public, the government, or others have misunderstood your political stance and tendencies?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I think there are some situations in both aspects. This is what is said in a federal prison. When I first donated a big deal in 2020, I did give it to Biden. Part of the reason is that I don't want the Democrats to become a party like Bernie Sanders. At the time, I saw myself as a centre-left , but now I no longer see myself that way, and by 2022, my view had changed.

Over the next few years, I spent a lot of time in Washington, D.C. working with lawmakers, regulators, and the executive branch to deal with various issues, most of which are related to cryptocurrency policy. However, over time, I am increasingly disappointed and frustrated with the Biden administration and the Democratic Party. I'm not sure whether my position has changed or the Democrats' position has changed, but at least in the areas I'm most familiar with - especially cryptocurrency policy - the Biden administration's attitude is extremely destructive and even difficult to cooperate . Frankly, the Republican Party is more rational on these issues, so I spent a lot of time in Washington to do my best, hoping that even if the Democrats took control of the White House and the Senate and the House of Representatives at the time, we could still work across the party and prevent the government from doing so. The industry implements strict policies.

AR: I want to ask you a question - not sure if you have followed this topic, but it has been widely discussed: "attitude shift" by tech leaders, such as Zuckerberg and Bezos. You may have been in contact with these people before. If your trial hadn't happened, do you think you could have stood on the stage of the president's inauguration? Or ask in another way, what do you think of this phenomenon? Do you think your story has some connection with the changes in current technology culture?

Sam Bankman-Fried: Of course I can't speak for them, but I think they may have seen what I've seen in the past four years. Zuckerberg probably best expresses this – I guess he had hoped the government would take a reasonable and constructive approach to dealing with false information, but the end result turned out to be “false propaganda under the banner of anti-false information” , more like a kind of political censorship. I think they have had similar frustrations in working with the Biden administration, like many people in the crypto industry experience when it comes to business and freedom of speech.

AR: What do you think of politicians issuing meme tokens? Have you heard of Trump Coin released by Trump before taking office?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I've heard of it, but for well-known reasons, the access to information in prison is very limited, so I don't know as much about it as I hoped. However, I'm not surprised to see politicians start to get into the digital realm. Over time, I expect more and more industries to explore this area, partly because cryptocurrencies are more flexible than traditional financial systems. This is one of the reasons why the industry is growing so rapidly and innovations are emerging one after another. Blockchain infrastructure is more modern and open, with lower development costs, and there is no need to worry about violating patents, compulsory regulatory monopoly or other obstacles to traditional financial systems when building across regions.

AR: Let me ask you a question - I have spoken to a lot of people in the crypto industry and bankruptcy liquidation field, who have expressed serious concerns about how your case is handled and how FTX manages bankruptcy. Many related issues are mentioned in court documents, but from your point of view, what makes you still hope? What makes you feel frustrated? Obviously, issues like amnesty are at the intersection of politics and law. I'm curious, from your perspective in prison, what are the possible breakthroughs?

Sam Bankman-Fried: The thing that frustrated me the most so far—but in some ways, has also given me some hope lately— is the issue of bankruptcy management.

The situation in this regard is similar, of course, larger. Banks have millions of customers and trillions of dollars in funding. Sometimes, in a short period of time, a large number of customers will make withdrawal requests, and banks will need to repay billions of dollars in a short period of time. Banks will not deposit all their assets into cash, but will hold assets such as treasury bonds and mortgage loans. Therefore, they will sell their assets in exchange for cash to deal with withdrawal needs.

This is called a "bank run". It does put pressure on banks, but it does not cause customers to lose funds. This is just a liquidity management issue, and banks need to adjust their asset structure in a short period of time to meet market demand.

What happens with FTX is similar to this. Before the crisis broke out in November 2022, our net assets were approximately $10 billion and another $20 billion in equity value. Then, suddenly, a "bill run" occurred—and FTX's customers began withdrawing billions of dollars from the platform every day. So we took the usual measures of banks to deal with bank runs, just like you sell your car for cash, we are also selling assets in exchange for liquidity.

This process is expected to take several days to weeks, but we have received multiple quotes for accelerated transactions. This is indeed a huge effort, but it is a common liquidity management problem in the financial system and should not cause damage to customers.

However, the situation did not develop according to normal market logic. A law firm took over FTX and did nothing for the next two years, just pretending that there was no penny in the account.

AR: Sam, do you think you are innocent?

Sam Bankman-Fried: Yes, absolutely. Of course, there are a lot of things I choose to deal with in different ways, and as CEO, I made a lot of decisions. But there is no doubt that the biggest mistake I made was when I was in November 2022, I didn’t stick to it.

I shouldn 't let Sullivan & Cromwell take over FTX. I should stand up and resist them, but I didn't. After that, not only me, but millions of clients have experienced a long and painful wait, being wrongly informed that the account is out of money and only recently started receiving compensation.

AR: I want to ask you a question – from Danielle Sassoon to other prosecutors’ representatives, their allegations against you are mostly centered around fraud, greed and misconduct. For most people, the scale of funds you handle is almost unimaginable.

Let me cut from here: What is your attitude towards money? There has been a lot of reports on your interest in "Effective Altruism" and other causes. But simply put, what does it feel like to have such a huge wealth? What is your real thought? From a larger perspective, what is your original intention?

Sam Bankman-Fried: It was an amazing fortune, and it came suddenly—in just a few years, I had far more money than I could imagine in my life.

The way I treat money is divided into two levels. The first is my personal life. From this perspective, my life has not changed much. I live on my salary. Although the annual salary of $200,000 is considerable, it is far from a billion dollars in wealth. I haven't let my lifestyle change drastically, and honestly, I've never been attracted to luxury. I never understand the charm of a yacht, for example, it has never been a wise way to allocate resources to me.

Instead, I focus on larger funding operations and their potential impact on the world. I look at these wealth from an “effective altruism” perspective: Since I have funds for donations, where can it make the most positive impact?

Some of this is used in global health causes—to help those who die from preventable diseases such as malaria and schistosomiasis. Another part is used for animal welfare and epidemic prevention. Of course, some of the funds are invested in the political field. I think these areas can effectively leverage large-scale funds – billions of dollars in investment can really make a substantial difference.

AR: How have you experienced these ups and downs over the past few years?

Sam Bankman-Fried: From a personal perspective… there are a lot of things that I don’t like. But money is not the most important one... What I miss the most is freedom. But what frustrated me the most was that I had hoped to have a positive impact on the world and now I can’t do it anymore.

There are a lot of great causes and charities that were originally expected to receive my big donations over the next decade, but now they can’t get that funding anymore. Not only that, they were even affected and stigmatized because of their connection with me. It made me feel very sad and I feel deeply guilty about it.

AR: You were at the forefront of the cryptocurrency industry, and some even compared the industry back then to the "Wild West". Whether it’s fierce competition, working with controversial figures, or becoming part of an industry that’s still groping – are you frustrated? Because some people are still free to move, and you, a person who once had altruistic ideas, fall into the current situation?

In other words, a religious person might ask, “Why me?” Have you ever felt injustice or anger?

Sam Bankman-Fried: Obviously, I'm very frustrated with what I've been doing, but I try not to look at other people in a negative way. This way of thinking is neither constructive nor fair.

Ultimately, my misfortune is not their fault, and they should not suffer because of my misfortune. Many of them have achieved quite impressive achievements in their field. Yes, we have cooperated and disagreed, but my failure does not mean that their success is undeserved.

AR: If one day you can regain your freedom—whether in any way—have you ever thought about what you would do? Will you still want to return to the crypto industry? Or, have you ever had experiences similar to "epidemic moments" that gave you different ideas about the future? Or is it all too far away to imagine?

Sam Bankman-Fried: This is obviously a very, very distant question. If that day really comes, I must seriously think about my future direction.

But for now, I try not to worry about this issue, because I have no control over it now. I still have more than 20 years in prison to be subscribed. And, frankly, judging from the prosecutors and judges’ statements in court, their intention seems to be to prevent me from having a meaningful life again after I’m sentenced.

So, now consider what I would do if the situation changes, it is like "putting the cart before the horse".

AR: What is the thing you miss the most? Are they simple things, such as walking, drinking coffee, or having a late night chat with friends?

Sam Bankman-Fried: For me, things on the physical level are never the most important.

Obviously, I miss the conversation with my friends. But what makes me more painful than this is that I lose the freedom of information - I cannot obtain external information at any time. I just can search for information online at will, and this loss of ability makes me miss it very much.

Besides that, what I miss most is being able to devote myself to a meaningful job. These two points are the most difficult thing for me to let go of after losing them.

AR: What is the most realistic thing for you next? Do you have any expectations for what will happen in the coming weeks or months? Is it a feeling of constant or is there some narrative progress?

Sam Bankman-Fried: Life is quite monotonous. There is not much to do in prison.

I'm used to devote myself to my work, but there's nothing to devote to here. From a more macro perspective, the most important thing next is my appeal result. There is expected oral debate in the next three to six months. I am cautiously optimistic, but in the federal criminal justice system, the chance of any reversal is not high. So saying "cautiously optimistic" just means that I think we still have a glimmer of hope. I hope the judges can take a serious and critical look at the whole thing.

Beyond that, as prisoners, we have little control over our lives. Most things are not decided by us, but happen to us. For example, now there is a possibility that I might be moved elsewhere in the country, and the process could last for days, weeks, or even months. This obviously disrupts my existing, only remaining daily routine.

AR: I'm very interested in the topic of "control". In my opinion, you have always been a – maybe a bit clichéd to say so – “subversion”, someone who prefers to build his own kingdom rather than live under rules set by others. Whether in college, business, or other fields, you always seem to want to do things your own way.

And now, you are thrown into this strictest and most rigid system. I don’t have any particularly profound insights, but I just think that the law itself is a huge system.

Sam Bankman-Fried: Yes, this experience is extremely frustrating. Moreover, what makes me even more uncomfortable is that I see many people around me are also experiencing similar things.

There are various stories here, but one of the common features is exactly what you just mentioned - you are thrown into this system and completely lose the initiative. This is a place where people lose their humanity, an environment without choice and autonomy.

For many, especially those who cannot afford to hire a lawyer, they can only rely on public defense attorneys. Sometimes, they will meet good lawyers, but many times they won’t. In this way, they can 't even control their own cases. Even if they want to be involved, their voices often don’t get real listening. Their defense proceedings are happening around them, and they themselves seem to be trapped in the tide of the judicial system, going with the flow, no matter what the facts are.

AR: How do you think of it all? I think you have always been a person who tends to think about problems with logic and even mathematical thinking - if I am wrong, please correct me. But now, you have to face the way the legal system works. Is this change frustrating for you? Do you think these two ways of thinking are completely different, just like "Adventure in Alice's Mirror", entering a completely strange world?

Sam Bankman-Fried: Yes, there are two levels involved.

First, the law itself does sometimes seem weird, outrageous, and even illogical.

This doesn't just apply to my case, I see here that many people are facing extremely ridiculous dilemmas.

For example, can you kidnap a person for six seconds? This may sound like a strange question, but in fact, in half of the U.S., the answer is “yes” – at least legally holds. And such a charge could result in a 25-year prison term.

This is just one example. But another deeper problem is how the entire criminal justice system works. You will find that at some stages, judges are like small dictators, controlling everything, while at other stages, prosecutors have absolute power. If their judgment doesn’t make sense, it really doesn’t make sense—and there is usually no real avenue of relief.

There is no competition here, and there is no accountability. In a sense, this is a monopoly system.

This is the case if the people in power have no interest in justice on a particular issue. Of course, you can appeal, but the process will take several years. It may take three years before you can get a "second opinion".

AR: Before this happened, you tried to explore how to use huge resources to make social impact. Do you think you have found a way to make wealth effectively improve the world?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I have some ideas, but I certainly haven't found the "ultimate answer". I don't think anyone found it.

There are still a lot more I need to learn, but at least some of the basic principles are starting to become clear. Some truths are actually obvious, such as paying attention to details, data, and the actual impact of different careers.

One of the biggest problems is that scale is very difficult. You may find an intervention that is very effective at small-scale resources, but if you increase your funds tenfold, the extra 90% may be completely wasted. Sometimes the limiting factor is not even the funding, but whether there is a truly efficient team.

The most consistent model we found is that the most successful sports, careers, charities and organizations often have a well-run team—the team is clear in goals, strong but thoughtful in leadership, and the entire structure can be efficiently coordinated. But this is rare.

As long as there is a lack of such a team, efficiency will completely collapse. No matter how much money is invested, it cannot solve the fundamental problem.

Frankly, I think the government has the same problem, and we are seeing this happening in real time.

I don't know if you've followed Doge and what's going on around it, but it's actually a realistic debate about "reform vs revolution" - whether to choose a scalpel or a chainsaw.

Over time, I have become increasingly inclined to the “chain saw” way in some cases. Some things do not require only 10% redundancy reduction, but 30%, 50% or even 70%. But of course, after the cut, it must be rebuilt correctly. You can't just cut everything off and leave a blank.

Look at the SEC (SEC) – the entire crypto industry cannot communicate with it properly. The question is not whether the institution needs to improve a little efficiency, but that it seems to exist entirely to kill innovation.

Ironically, however, it employs a huge workforce without actually completing almost nothing.

AR: Sam, your story is indeed extraordinary. But as you said, whether it is your appeal or potential amnesty, you need exceptions to your case.

Do you think you are an exception? Is your case unique or do you think it represents a broader question?

Sam Bankman-Fried: The pattern I saw in my case is not unique. Many other cases have similar problems.

But when the media gets involved, when the public is at a high level, when political factors—whether partisan or workplace politics—are mixed in, everything is magnified. And when the professional incentives of law enforcement officials are also involved, these patterns not only exist, but will expand and spread infinitely, becoming uncontrollable.

So, in some ways, my case is an extreme manifestation of these issues, but it is by no means the only case.

AR: Hey Sam, sorry I missed the 3pm call – I was helping a prisoner with legal matters.

Sam Bankman-Fried: That's OK.

AR: One of your core arguments in your appeal seems to be: FTX has always been solvency, the company's assets are enough to repay all customers, and the ultimate collapse is essentially a liquidity crisis. This is not only the key to your appeal, but also seems to be the core issue in understanding the wrong case and how it is handled.

Can you explain in detail?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I was regularly reviewing financial statements and balance sheets, and during the crisis we made sure we found out what each entity actually held.

I still retain many of the financial statements and balance sheets of that time. We have handed all these documents to the bankruptcy administrator in case they need it, but they have no interest in it.

In addition, I have been paying attention to the progress after bankruptcy, and every financial statement – ​​whether it is before, during, or after bankruptcy – shows that FTX is solvency. All data show that our assets are always greater than our liabilities. This fact has never changed, and we all know that.

This has always been our most important measure. If this is not the case, we do face a real crisis, and there may be an insolvency and no solution. But in fact, data is trackable.

If we look at assets and liabilities as a whole, our total net assets will be worth about $40 billion to $50 billion during the 2021 bull market, and FTX will also have an equity value of $20 billion to $30 billion.

Then, the market crashed in the first half of 2022. Even so, we still have about $20 billion in assets, corresponding to $10 billion in liabilities -about 2 times the leverage ratio. This means that even if a “bank run” occurs, if all FTX customers suddenly try to withdraw all their funds, we can exchange this $20 billion in assets for cash to meet withdrawal needs.

In addition, FTX has an additional $20 billion in equity as support. This has not changed throughout the crisis and remains true to this day.

In a way, I think in November 2022, we could—and are actually working hard— to repay all customers in full on the same-is-is-asset (in kind), i.e. clients will receive their request for withdrawal. Assets, not the converted fiat currency amount. We were selling investments to speed up the process and have received billions of dollars in liquidity support to be able to complete payments in days or weeks. Some of these funds have begun to arrive.

However, looking at the moment, the frustration of many customers is completely understandable. After all, it has been two and a half years, and in the first two years, they have almost nothing. Now, what they receive is not the cryptocurrency they originally held, but the equivalent USD calculated based on the petition-day price.

I totally understand their frustration. Frankly, the bankruptcy management team and the debtors made a very strange decision - they chose to not return the client’s assets as is, but to pay it only in the equivalent of USD. But it was entirely their proactive decision, not that they "had to" do it.

If they did nothing in the past two years—even if they were just sitting there doing nothing—then today, the bankruptcy estate should have an excess value of $40 billion to $60 billion, depending on whether the equity is included and whether they are What could have been done with this company.

If all assets are repaid as is, what customers should have received is a complete crypto asset, rather than redeeming at a USD 17,000 per Bitcoin on the bankruptcy filing date, but returning their Bitcoin directly.

Therefore, repaying all clients’ assets should not be a problem, either in November 2022 or today. And, as the price of the crypto market rises, things should have been better – if assets have not been consumed unreasonably in the past period…

AR: So, what exactly is wrong? Is it because people don’t know how to read the account books at all? Do you think this is malicious behavior, or is there a misunderstanding during the information transmission process?

Sam Bankman-Fried: If the choice was to spend the next few days or weeks to clear the assets—that is, the usual response in a bank run: to sell investments and assets to meet withdrawal needs—then this Everything works and it will be done soon. This is exactly what we have been doing and a direction we can advance.

Another option is the proposal proposed by Sullivan & Cromwell (S&C): take over the company and file for bankruptcy protection with part of its business (Chapter 11). At the time, I was not sure what their specific plan was, but now we have seen the results.

Of course I can't fully know what others really think, but infer from their actions... You ask them if they misread the financial statements - the problem is not just a misread, they are simply unwilling to seriously review any financial documents compiled by the company . They directly deny the whole story on the grounds that "these data are unreliable", but at the same time, they confidently announced in public that FTX is "shockless", and even used the metaphor of "a garbage dump fire" to describe the company's situation .

They cannot have reasonable grounds to draw this conclusion, especially if they completely ignore existing financial data. Moreover, these data actually show what they claim to be. According to their own statements over the past few years, initially at the end of 2022 or early 2023, they claimed that the company had only $1 billion in assets. A few months later, they said they found $5 billion, which later turned into $7 billion, which grew to $13 billion by early 2024. And by 2025, this number has become $15 billion. These assets are always there, and the numbers continue to grow only after they stop ignoring them.

AR: Try to help me clarify one question: What is the relationship between the allegations about FTX using customer funds and how FTX and Alameda work? How does this connect with the argument that “FTX has always been profitable”?

Sam Bankman-Fried: That's a good question—and it's frustrating that we didn't have the chance to explain this at the trial. Moreover, the prosecutor is not willing to explore this issue in depth.

Here are two key thinking angles. First, it is necessary to clarify whether "borrowing" has actually occurred. In other words, are the assets deposited by customers borrowed and used by other customers? Or, the balance of each account only reflects their actual holdings. For example, there are 3 Bitcoins and 2 Ethereum in a customer account, and the exchange does hold the corresponding 3 Bitcoins in the wallet. Match with 2 Ethereum?

For FTX US, it is basically the latter case. Most customers simply trade spots, they do not have margin trading or leveraged lending, so there is no negative balance in their account. The total assets of these customers are exactly matched by the assets in the FTX US wallet.

But for FTX International, the situation is different. About 80% of assets are leveraged, which means that these accounts do not simply hold part of Bitcoin or a small amount of dollar balance, but involve leveraged trading. For example, a customer might have $500 in Bitcoin and $400 in Ethereum, but these assets are calculated based on leverage… When the user deposits $100, then uses leverage to buy $500 in assets and borrows the remaining $400 When the exchange does not hold $500 in assets to represent the account, it will only hold $100. This leveraged trading model occupies most trading activity on FTX International, both in terms of asset size and trading volume.

So of course, it involves lending - this is the core function of the platform. Users can use margin trading to conduct cross-margin management, deposit any assets as collateral, and then trade with leverage, whether it is buying and selling tokens or futures.

AR (Interviewer): Your argument is not "moral luck" - that is, it is not because there is enough funds in the end that everything can be rationalized afterwards. On the contrary, you are saying that this operating model is the way the platform operates, and it was designed from the beginning.

Sam Bankman-Fried: That's right, this has always been the core operating logic of the platform.

Of course, there is another key consideration in this process: solvency. Even if users know that the platform will involve lending and re-hypothecation, they still expect the platform to fulfill its financial obligations. If you deposit collateral and trade, and then close the position later, the platform should be able to reasonably meet your withdrawal request.

If an exchange is completely insolvent, it cannot meet the user's withdrawal needs, and this is ultimately the biggest risk. If you lose your solvency, everything will collapse.

But on FTX, most transactions involve borrowing and re-collateralization by default—this is how the platform works. Moreover, judging from book data, the total assets of FTX are always higher than the asset size of pure spot accounts. About 20% of the assets on the platform come from users who do not use leverage or futures trading, and these assets are always directly redeemed.

Of course, there are a lot of details involved—this is just a rough overview. If you have a more in-depth discussion, you can also analyze in detail how the Terms of Service, where different parts of it apply to different asset types. But from a macro perspective, this is the basic principle.

AR: Do you think the problem of solvency is related to "intent"? Does it involve fraudulent mens rea (criminal intent) requirements?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I think it's related to some extent.

Explain another way - if a platform provides lending services and someone eventually takes away and spends too much assets, causing the platform to go bankrupt with 10 times the debt of assets, not only does the assets mismatch in the account, but there is no Any saleable assets are available to repay the customer, then such an action will obviously lead to the loss of funds from others and "knowingly causing losses."

However, if this is not the case, then while this does not answer all legal questions, it can at least answer one basic question - is there a clear theft here, or is it just a contractual dispute about commercial obligations?

(The original phone number is broken here)