Caroline Ellison, the former CEO of Alameda Research, has been sentenced to two years in prison for her involvement in the collapse of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX, which is now defunct.
On September 24, Ellison, 29, was sentenced in the Southern District of New York of the United States. In the Manhattan federal courthouse, she was arraigned before Judge Lewis Kaplan.
The Judge deems Ellison’s cooperation with the Prosecution to be “remarkable”
Reuters reports that Kaplan characterized Ellison’s cooperation with prosecutors as “remarkable” and expressed his discomfort with the notion of remorse and cooperation serving as a “get out of jail free card” in a case of such gravity.
Ellison also maintained a personal rapport with Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of FTX, who was recently sentenced to 25 years in prison for embezzling more than $8 billion from the company’s consumers.
She entered a plea agreement in which she admitted to money laundering and wire fraud charges, which resulted in her sentencing.
She provided critical information regarding the inner workings of the deceptive scheme during her testimony against Bankman-Fried as part of her collaboration with prosecutors.
Ellison has been ordered to disgorge assets valued at over $11 billion in addition to her prison sentence; however, this sum may be increased if additional restitution is requested.
Caroline Ellison had a big impact on Bankman-Fried’s conviction
Caroline Ellison’s testimony against Bankman-Fried was crucial in getting him convicted. He was convicted of orchestrating substantial fraud by misappropriating customer funds to finance extravagant lifestyles, make risky investments, and contribute to political campaigns.
Bankman-Fried has tried to undermine Ellison’s credibility as a witness by providing The New York Times with excerpts from her diary before his trial.
Bankman-Fried’s legal team submitted a request for a new trial earlier this month, asserting that he was denied a reasonable hearing during his criminal conviction, in a brief submitted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
They contended that federal prosecutors were more concerned with securing immediate headlines than assuring a fair trial.
