Sam Bankman-Fried in NYT Interview: 'I've Had a Bad Month'

The notorious SBF, a.k.a. disgraced FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, was arguably the main attraction at Wednesday's much anticipated DealBook Summit hosted by the New York Times in Manhattan, even rivaling the Left's go-to show-stoppers like Ukraine's forever-war President Volodymyr Zelensky. The fee to attend the conference for hobnobbers in the tech and political news industries was an expensive $2,499, but the spectacle of Bankman-Fried squirming under scrutiny was priceless.

Next week the New York Times in partnership with WEF partner Accenture is supposed to be hosting a live event with Sam Bankman-Fried. Sitting next to him will be Zelensky, Zuckerberg and U.S. Treasury's Janet Yellen. pic.twitter.com/EftL947r0m

— Jeremy Loffredo (@loffredojeremy) November 17, 2022

Since the dethroned billionaire, who was the second-largest contributor to Democrat-affiliated political action committees (PACs) and organizations during the 2022 midterm campaigns, suffered an Icarus-like fall from grace, the public has seen little of Bankman-Fried. The live Q&A marks the first time Bankman-Fried has shown his face post-scandal for a public interview, although it was a virtual appearance from the Bahamas, where the now-bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange is headquartered.

Here are the main takeaways from Bankman-Fried's hour-long interview since FTX filed for bankruptcy:

'Buying Influence'

Bankman-Fried denied he was attempting to "buy influence" with generous grants to media powerhouses before FTX's nosedive.

"You also made big investments in a number of media companies and I think that's raised a lot of questions about whether you were trying to buy influence. Can you speak to that?" questioned New York Times Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin.

Bankman-Fried replied: "I mean, I think media matters a lot and I want to support good media ventures. That was the whole thesis there. And, you know, I don't have like governance over any of these. I wasn't looking for governance over them."

"I was looking to support journalists doing great work because I think what they do is really important, and I think there needs to be a critical eye on stories," he declared. "Frankly, I think it's healthy for the world that there is real investigative journalism."

The former darling of the mainstream media had made big-dollar donations to a handful of news organizations through the Bankman-Fried family's "philanthropic" foundation, Building a Stronger Future, including ProPublica, Vox, and The Intercept.

ProPublica was awarded an eye-popping $5 million grant to report on "pandemic preparedness" and "any future outbreaks, but the non-profit received only the first tranche of three payments before the remaining annual disbursements were placed on hold.

Recommended

Georgia Conducted a Hand Count Audit of Its Election Results. Guess What it Found? Guy Benson

Advertisement

New: Grants from Sam Bankman-Fried's foundation to ProPublica are on hold. Here's the email from ProPublica president Robin Sparkman to staff this afternoon. pic.twitter.com/J62bdFsppo

— Max Tani (@maxwelltani) November 11, 2022

Vox's Future Perfect program was gifted a grant from Building a Stronger Future for a 2023 reporting project "on technological and innovation bottlenecks that hamper human progress," but the left-wing news site's project is now on pause, as of Nov. 16.

The Intercept has received just $500,000 of the multi-million dollar grant promised by Building a Stronger Future to finance the non-profit news outlet's "bio-risk, pandemic prevention, and lab-bio safety" coverage. In a leaked letter to staff members, The Intercept's editor-in-chief Roger Hodge admitted that there's a "significant hole" in the company's budget. Another $250,000 was due in December with $3.25 million to follow over the next two years. "As of right now," all further payments are on hold.

In his email begging for public donations to compensate for the collapse of FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried -- who promised $4 million to the Intercept -- its Editor-in-Chief @RogerDHodge alleged: "we disclosed the grant in our reporting on SBF's political activities."

Is that true? https://t.co/rPVWCo2tG7

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2022

'Committing Fraud'

Bankman-Fried insisted he's not to blame for the downfall of FTX and never attempted to commit fraud.

Sorkin noted that some believe Bankman-Fried is just "a young man who made a series of terrible, terrible very, very bad decisions," while many others are accusing Bankman-Fried of having carred out "a Ponzi scheme, manipulation of the system."

"Clearly, I made a lot of mistakes or things I would give anything to be able to do over again. I didn't ever try to commit fraud on anyone," Bankman-Fried responded, noting he was "shocked by what happened" and wishes he had done things "differently."

Later on in the conversation, Sorkin asked: "How concerned are you about criminal liability at this point?"

"So, I don't think that—I mean, obviously—I don't personally think that I have, you know, but I think the real answer is it's not," Bankman-Fried answered. "Sounds weird to say but, but I think the real answer is that's not what I'm focusing on. There's going to be time and a place for me to sort of think about myself in my own future, but I don't think this is like, right now," he deflected.

That's when Bankman-Fried said: "I mean, like, I've had a bad month. This is not, like, that's not what matters."

.@SBF_FTX: "I don't personally think that I have [criminal liability] ... I think the real answer is, that’s not what I’m focusing on ... I mean, look. I’ve had a bad month" pic.twitter.com/HGuEYHVdTn

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) November 30, 2022

What does matter, Bankman-Fried pivoted, is the millions of customers and all the stakeholders in FTX who got hurt. "I'm trying to do everything I can to help them out and as long as that's the case," Bankman-Fried stressed. "Like, I don't think that, you know, what happens to me is the important part of that. And I don't think that's what it makes sense for me to be focusing on."

Sources told Retuers that Bankman-Fried moved a whopping $10 billion of FTX's customer funds to its sister trading house Alameda Research, which is run by the crypto whiz kid's rumored ex-lover Caroline Ellison. At least $1 billion and up to $2 billion in client funds have since vanished and were not accounted for among Alameda's assets, Reuters reported. In text messages to Reuters, Bankman-Fried asserted that he "disagreed with the characterization" of the "secret" $10 billion transfer, dismissing it as "confusing internal labeling" that was "misread." When questioned about the missing funds, Bankman-Fried responded: "???"

FTX's legal and finance teams also learned that Bankman-Fried implemented a so-called "backdoor" in FTX's book-keeping system, per Reuters. According to the report, the escape hatch, which he denied over text, allowed Bankman-Fried to execute commands that could alter the crypto giant's financial records without alerting others, including external auditors, which meant that the alleged movement of $10 billion in funds to Alameda did not trigger internal compliance or accounting red flags at FTX.

Sorry, I Guess

"I was as truthful as I'm knowledgeable to be," Bankman-Fried said to Sorkin, referring to their wide-ranging discussion.

While the New York Times interviewer seemed to confront Bankman-Fried on a fair assortment of challenges, some feel that the questions were not "tough" enough, nor was there adequate follow-up to some of the grilling. A Twitter poll launched by a crypto trader found that a number of members in the crypto community believe Sorkin "soft-balled" the interview with Bankman-Fried.

How did Sorkin do in his interview of SBF?

— Clark (@CanteringClark) November 30, 2022

Legal experts reviewing the SBF-NYT interview assess that that some of Bankman-Fried's statements could be used to incriminate him in legal proceedings. Crypto attorney Jeremy Hogan, partner at Hogan & Hogan, wrote on Twitter that the New York Times reporter's "light cross-examination" of Bankman-Fried has returned "at least 3 incriminating statements so far."

SBF is getting a light cross-examination at the NYT/Dealbook Summit and has made at least 3 incriminating statements so far.

Why are his lawyers (or parents) letting him do this?? pic.twitter.com/Nd0poutAA0

— Jeremy Hogan (@attorneyjeremy1) November 30, 2022

Securities lawyer Alan Rosca said it was "pretty astonishing that he's in effect testifying...Hard to think of a precedent for this."

SBF’s body language looks awful, imho. Interesting to think how a jury of his peers would see his truthfulness.

It’s pretty astonishing that he’s in effect testifying at the DealBook summit. Hard to think of a precedent for this. Just said his lawyers disagreed.#SBF #SBF_FTX pic.twitter.com/UWjLVXYDjF

— Alan Rosca (@alanrosca) November 30, 2022

Bankman-Fried's testimony via video conference comes off more like PR damage control than any admission of guilt. Many suspect Bankman-Fried won't be behind bars anytime soon and speculate that he'll be off the hook with Hunter Biden-esque immunity, given that he's bankrolled the committees of key congressional lawmakers involved in the pending U.S. probes.

This election cycle, Bankman-Fried's deep-pocketed "philanthropy" was runner-up to liberal mega-donor George Soros, funneling a monstrous $38 million to left-wing entities that financed the successful campaigns of Democrat candidates elected to Congress.