Sam Bankman-Fried, a former crypto chief, has been presenting his case to a judge in court after the jury was dismissed.
Judge Kaplan called upon the former entrepreneur to present his testimony so that the jury could decide which parts to include.
A 31-year-old individual is charged with deceiving investors and loan providers and illegally taking funds from clients of the now defunct FTX cryptocurrency exchange.
He argued that he was following legal counsel in sincerity.
The judge dismissed the jury so that he could decide whether any of Mr Bankman-Fried's declaration should be allowed as proof.
The action provided Mr Bankman-Fried and his attorneys with an opportunity to rehearse before he possibly addresses the jury.
Mr Bankman-Fried asserted that the choices he made that had been disputed by prosecutors were valid, such as setting some group chats to delete automatically; this, he argued, was in accord with policies on record keeping that had been established by his legal team.
He mentioned that he had discussed various other plans with his legal advisors, such as the individual loans he secured from Alameda, as well as its capability as a "payments processor" for FTX.
Mark Cohen, attorney of Mr Bankman-Fried, inquired if he had been consoled by the fact that lawyers had organized the loans. To which, Mr Bankman-Fried replied in the affirmative.
He mentioned he had relied on his legal advisors to file paperwork for bank accounts for his firms. "I was under the impression that the documentation was complete," he articulated.
The prosecution has opposed Mr Bankman-Fried's claims that his actions were based on counsel, asserting that it doesn't matter if the lawyers weren't aware of all the facts.
The judge did not immediately decide what testimony Mr Bankman-Fried could give, but expressed disbelief about some of the arguments.
At the outset, Mr Bankman Fried expressed himself lucidly and firmly; however, when cross-examined harshly by Danielle Sassoon, the prosecutor, on when he had received legal counsel and what he had informed them of, he started to falter.
Judge Kaplan urged Mr Bankman-Fried to heed the query and provide a direct response.
Mr Bankman Fried stated that, although he wouldn't phrase it in that way, he does believe that Alameda is allowed to spend FTX customer funds.
More than sixty seconds elapsed after Ms Sassoon enquired of him to identify language in an agreement between the two entities that had conveyed to him that notion. In the end, he called attention to a section which declared that the resources could "be retained and/or conveyed".
Judge Lewis Kaplan will make a decision in the morning regarding the evidence that Mr Bankman-Fried will present to the jury.
Dozens of spectators, including screenwriters, retirees, and other bystanders compelled by the abrupt change in fortune of the ex-billionaire, were present at the court for Mr Bankman-Fried's anticipated hearing.
He has now appeared in New York court after the prosecution's testimony period of 12 days, with his ex-colleagues providing evidence.
It had been expected that Mr Bankman-Fried would address the court on Thursday after his lawyers started to present his defence.
Should he be convicted, a life prison term may be an imposed punishment.
In the US, defendants are not required to provide testimony during trials, usually being cautioned against it as it subjects them to questioning by prosecutors.
Furthermore, the jury who will make the final decision on the case will be given an opportunity to form their own opinions, which may not be in its favour.
Jacob Frenkel, a former federal prosecutor and watcher of the trial, asserted to the BBC earlier this month that if the jury does not accept the man's testimony, a conviction is certain.
In spite of the potential danger, numerous experts keeping tabs on the court case expected Mr Bankman-Fried to testify and relate his own account of the matter in an attempt to challenge the evidence given by the prosecutors.
Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, remarked that the prosecutors had made a compelling argument and that, based on what he had seen so far, there was minimal risk for the defendant to testify.
The evidence presented by the prosecutors is based on the declarations of three of his ex-friends and coworkers who have admitted their guilt.
Mr Bankman-Fried has been connected to actions of taking funds deposited at FTX and instead utilizing them to repay creditors of his crypto trading enterprise, Alameda Research; purchasing property; creating investments; and making political contributions.
It is claimed that he attempted to conceal the transfers between the two companies along with their close association - and lawyers have supported their assertions with text messages, spreadsheets and tweets.
In the course of the trial, through hours of questioning, it appears the credibility of witnesses, such as his ex-girlfriend and ex-Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison, remain largely intact.
The lawyers representing Mr Bankman-Fried have contended that the practices he employed were "justifiable" given the swift expansion of his businesses.
He acknowledged making managerial errors after the downfall of his businesses last year, elaborating on these mistakes in interviews with various media outlets, including the BBC. He clarified that he did not have any fraudulent intentions.
Elizabeth Holmes is one of the many prominent figures who have chosen to take the witness stand in their own trial.
The founder of blood-testing start-up Theranos, who stated that there was no intention to mislead investors, was found guilty on four out of 11 charges and was handed a prison sentence of more than 11 years.
Testifying can still be advantageous. Tom Barrack, a former executive in a private equity firm and fundraiser for former President Donald Trump, and Lebanese businessman Jean Boustani both testified at trials in different criminal cases and were found not guilty.
Comments