Sam Bankman-Fried denies moving funds from Alameda wallets.

Sam Bankman-Fried, the former CEO of the now-defunct FTX exchange, has denied moving funds tied to Alameda wallets. He said this a few days after he was released on a $250 million bond.

On December 30, Fried tweeted to his 1.1 million followers that he had nothing to do with the money moving out of Alameda wallets. In response to claims that he may have moved money out of Alameda wallets, he said, “None of these are me.” I don’t have access to those funds anymore, so I can’t move any of them.


I’m not any of these. I am not, and I can’t move any of those funds because I no longer have access to them.

— SBF (@SBFFTX) 30 December 2022
The tweet was in response to a news story from Cointelegraph that said an address starting with 0x64e9 had gotten more than 600 ETH from wallets belonging to Alameda. On-chain transaction records show that some of the funds were exchanged for USDT and the rest were sent to a mixing service.

People in the crypto community thought it might have been an inside job because of how the money was moved and where it went. Some people thought that SBF might have done it. It was found that the Alameda wallet was trading pieces of ERC-20s for Ether and USDT, which were then sent through instant exchanges and mixers.

Alameda ETH addresses are looking for spare change in the couch cushions and trading bits of ERC20s for ETH and USDT.

The ETH and USDT were then sent through exchangers that work quickly.


This raises some serious concerns…

— Ergo (@ErgoBTC) December 28, 2022
Be careful on Web3. Get more information about Web3 Antivirus.


BowTiedIguana, a DeFi teacher, did an on-chain investigation and found that SBF cashed out $684,000 in crypto via an exchange in the Seychelles while he was under house arrest.

On December 29, BowTiedIguana wrote about a number of wallet transactions that were said to be connected to SBF. The transaction records seemed to show that the former CEO of FTX may have broken a condition of his release that said he couldn’t spend more than $1,000 without the court’s permission.


Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button