In case you've heard and been inclined to believe claims that SBF did nothing illegal, did not commit fraud, was solvent, and/or got screwed by the bankruptcy lawyers --> SBF just lost his appeal and the hearing may help you to understand that yes, indeed, he did commit fraud.

“Whether they could get their money if they asked for it.” This judge sees directly through the solvency/liquidity misdirect SBF apologists have been regurgitating. IT’S A TOTAL NON-SEQUITOR. ANTHROPIC MOONING (also a fraud btw) HAS NO IMPACT ON THE CRIMINAL NATURE OF #FTX

Appeals lawyer is now arguing that Sam relied on lawyers for the Terms of Service, specifically for the Margin Lending clauses (16/18).

Sam’s defense hinges on the idea that effectively ALL customer deposits enabled margin lending. This is obviously untrue, but Sam’s defenders have made it an unshakeable truism because it is their only option. So now the appeals lawyer is implicitly reiterating that fiction.

The appelate lawyer makes it sound as if the issue is that Sam trusted lawyers and followed the TOS. But of course the real issue is that he violated the TOS insanely. The defense can never admit that, of course.

More discussion: Sam couldn’t claim an advice of counsel defense because he couldn’t testify that he’d actually told lawyers all the relevant facts (that is, moving funds). That’s a requirement to claim lawyers misled you. But there’s only evidence of four insiders.

Sam’s apellate is basically trying to argue Sam was acting in good faith because there were *lawyery vibes,” even as he was actively hiding activities from his lawyers.