One argument Bankman-Fried advanced was that the funds he misappropriated were in investments that would eventually grow.
“As the district court recognized, any contention that Bankman-Fried lacked an intent to defraud because he intended to eventually repay his customers was legally misleading and prejudicial because the wire fraud statute encompasses temporary misappropriation of money or property,” the ruling said.
The panel reiterated this argument later on: “Whether the assets purchased by Bankman-Fried appreciated in value is irrelevant as to whether he committed fraud,” the ruling said.
Bankman-Fried’s team tried to argue that FTX was a margin futures trading platform, and therefore customers should have expected that they might lose some access to their funds.
“We are unpersuaded,” the ruling said. “The fact that some FTX customers opted into margin trading, and thus temporary…
Treat every unsolicited “urgent” communication from a bank or government agency as a potential “Vishing” or “Smishing” attack, regardless of how official the branding or phone number appears.