The SEC alleges that Prager Metis, an accounting firm engaged by bankrupt crypto exchange FTX in 2021, committed hundreds of violations related to auditor independence.

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has commenced legal proceedings against an accounting firm that had provided services to cryptocurrency exchange FTX before its bankruptcy declaration.

According to a Sept. 29 statement, the SEC alleged that accounting firm Prager Metis provided auditing services to its clients without maintaining the necessary independence as it continued to offer accounting services. This practice is prohibited under the auditor independence framework.

To prevent conflicts of interest, accounting and audit tasks must be kept clearly separate. However, the SEC claims that these entwined activities spanned over a period of approximately three years:

“As alleged in our complaint, over a period of nearly three years, Prager’s audits, reviews, and exams fell short of these fundamental principles. Our complaint is an important reminder that auditor independence is crucial to investor protection.”

While the statement doesn't explicitly mention FTX or any other clients, it does emphasize that there were allegedly "hundreds" of auditor independence violations throughout the three-year period.

Furthermore, a previous court filing pointed out that the FTX Group engaged Metis to audit FTX US and FTX at some point in 2021. Subsequently, FTX declared bankruptcy in November 2022. 

The filing alleged that since former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried publicly announced previous FTX audit results, Metis should have recognized that its work would be used by FTX to bolster public trust.

Related: FTX founder’s plea for temporary release should be denied, prosecution says

Concerns were previously reported about the material presented in FTX audit reports.

On Jan. 25, current FTX CEO John J. Ray III told a bankruptcy court that he had “substantial concerns as to the information presented in these audited financial statements.”

Furthermore, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden raised concerns about Prager Metis' impartiality. They argued that it functioned as an advocate for the crypto industry.

Meanwhile, a law firm that provided services to FTX has come under scrutiny in recent times.

In a Sept. 21 court filing, plaintiffs allege that U.S. based law firm, Fenwick & West, should be held partially liable for FTX's collapse because it reportedly exceeded the norm when it came to its service offerings to the exchange.

However, Fenwick & West asserts that it cannot be held accountable for a client's misconduct as long as its actions remain within the bounds of the client's representation.

Magazine: Blockchain detectives: Mt. Gox collapse saw birth of Chainalysis

Read More

The DOJ intends to highlight the experiences of retail and institutional clients who entrusted substantial assets to FTX.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has confirmed its intention to summon former FTX clients, investors and staff as witnesses in the upcoming trial involving Sam Bankman-Fried, the former FTX CEO.

The DOJ submitted a letter motion in limine on Sept. 30 describing the witnesses it intends to call concerning FTX’s treatment of customer assets.

The testimonies intend to provide perspectives on the interactions between the accused and the witnesses. It also aims to get the witnesses’ understanding of Bankman-Fried’s remarks and conduct, particularly regarding FTX’s asset management. The DOJ intends to highlight the experiences of retail and institutional clients who entrusted substantial assets to FTX, believing that the platform would safeguard them securely.

Furthermore, a situation has emerged concerning one of the DOJ’s witnesses, “FTX Customer-1,” who resides in Ukraine. Given the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, traveling to the U.S. to provide testimony is associated with difficulties. The DOJ has suggested using video conferencing as a viable alternative. However, Bankman-Fried’s defense has not yet approved this proposal.

Nonetheless, the legal team representing Bankman-Fried, led by lawyer Mark Cohen, has voiced concerns about the jury questions put forth by the DOJ. According to Bankman-Fried’s defense, these interrogations insinuate guilt on Bankman-Fried’s part, potentially undermining the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.“

Additionally, the defense contends that these inquiries may not effectively uncover the jurors’ inherent biases, especially related to their encounters with cryptocurrencies. Moreover, specific questions could inadvertently guide the jury’s perspective instead of eliciting authentic insights, possibly compromising the trial’s impartiality.

Related: Sam Bankman-Fried’s lawyer challenges US gov’t proposed jury questions

With the jury selection scheduled to start on Oct. 3, closely followed by the trial, the spotlight is firmly on this high-stakes legal confrontation. This case underscores not only its immediate consequences but also underscores the vital importance of transparent communication and unbiased questioning in upholding the principles of justice.

Magazine: Deposit risk: What do crypto exchanges really do with your money?

Read More

This initiative also encompasses their comprehension of Sam Bankman-Fried's remarks and conduct, particularly regarding FTX's asset management.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has affirmed its plan to summon former FTX clients, investors, and staff as witnesses in the upcoming trial involving Sam Bankman-Fried, the former FTX executive. This will shed light on how these individuals viewed their interactions with Bankman-Fried and his company. 

The DOJ submitted a letter motion in limine on Sept. 30, to enable them to get the interpretation of the witnesses on FTX’s treatment of customer assets, which will hold significant importance.

Importantly, these testimonies are intended to provide valuable perspectives on the interactions between the accused and these witnesses. This initiative also encompasses their comprehension of Bankman-Fried's remarks and conduct, particularly regarding FTX's asset management. The DOJ intends to emphasize the experiences of both retail and institutional clients who entrusted substantial assets to FTX with the belief that the platform would safeguard them securely.

Furthermore, a distinctive situation has emerged concerning one of the DOJ's witnesses, referred to as "FTX Customer-1," who resides in Ukraine. Given the ongoing conflict, there are difficulties associated with traveling to the United States to provide testimony. Consequently, the DOJ has suggested using video conferencing as a viable alternative. However, Bankman-Fried's defense has not yet approved this proposal.

Nonetheless, the legal team representing Bankman-Fried, led by lawyer Mark Cohen, has voiced concerns about the jury questions put forth by the DOJ. According to Bankman-Fried’s defense, these interrogations insinuate guilt on Bankman-Fried's part, potentially undermining the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."

Additionally, the defense contends that these inquiries may not effectively uncover the jurors' inherent biases, especially if related to their personal encounters with cryptocurrencies. Moreover, certain questions could inadvertently guide the jury's perspective instead of eliciting authentic insights, possibly compromising the trial's impartiality.

Related: Sam Bankman-Fried’s lawyer challenges US gov’t proposed jury questions

With the jury selection scheduled to start on Oct. 3, closely followed by the trial, the spotlight is firmly on this high-stakes legal confrontation. This case underscores not only its immediate consequences but also underscores the vital importance of transparent communication and unbiased questioning in upholding the principles of justice.

Magazine: Deposit risk: What do crypto exchanges really do with your money?

Read More