Escritório de advocacia do Vale do Silício move para arquivar processo sobre papel em fraude de US$ 32 bilhões da FTX

Gigante jurídica enfrenta ação judicial por suposto envolvimento no colapso da exchange—enquanto tenta limpar sua imagem no maior escândalo cripto da década.

Acusações em Alta

Investidores alegam que o escritório facilitou estruturas corporativas opacas que mascararam o esquema de Ponzi—um clássico caso de 'devemos ter ignorado os sinais' com cheiro de ganância institucional.

Defesa em Ação

A firma nega veementemente qualquer irregularidade, argumentando que cumpriu todos os protocolos legais—porque claro, assessoria jurídica bilionária nunca vem com responsabilidade bilionária.

Impacto no Ecossistema

O caso testará os limites da responsabilidade profissional em infraestrutura cripto—enquanto tradicionais players de Wall Street observam com um misto de horror e fascínio schadenfreude.

O veredito final pode redefinir expectativas para consultores legais em operações de alto risco—porque quando US$ 32 bi evaporam, todo mundo suddenly se lembra de ética.

FTX clients claim Fenwick developed structures for SBF’s fraud

In a motion filed this month, FTX customers claimed fresh disclosures in bankruptcy and criminal proceedings bolster their argument that Fenwick was instrumental in the scheme that led to the exchange’s collapse. They claimed they can establish that Fenwick was well aware of the misconduct and substantially aided in the execution. 

The lawsuit, brought under RICO statutes, seeks to show that the law firm actively participated in client fraud rather than merely providing faulty legal guidance. According to the plaintiffs, Fenwick “designed, approved, and implemented” corporate structures that allowed Sam Bankman-Fried and his inner circle to divert customer assets through sham “loans.”

Aside from Fenwick, plaintiffs have gone after various alleged FTX enablers, from celebrities to major firms. Sullivan & Cromwell was once included in the suit but ultimately dropped when claims could not be substantiated.

In its filing, Fenwick said the revised complaint was untimely, relying on old information, and both misleading and futile. 

It wrote, “These new claims come far too late. If Plaintiffs truly thought they had state securities claims against Fenwick, they had every opportunity to allege them at the outset.”

The firm further pointed out that the accusations closely resemble those that plaintiffs had once pursued against Sullivan & Cromwell, before dropping them after a report cleared the firm of knowing about the fraud. The law firm maintained that the plaintiffs had offered nothing convincing to explain why the same claims should move forward against it.

Fenwick says Singh’s testimony does not include accounts of fraudulent actions

Fenwick pushed back against assertions that Nishad Singh, FTX’s lead engineer, had made a testimony at Bankman-Fried’s trial that implicated the firm in concealing the “misuse of customer funds” and sham loans.

The firm asserted that Singh’s testimony only showed that its role was simply to give routine advice on how to structure founder loans — a common tool for private companies like FTX. The firm added that many other witnesses had already made clear the fraud was carried out without the knowledge of FTX’s own lawyers, managers, accountants, or outside advisers. It argued it was in the same position.

Additionally, it claimed that the plaintiffs’ newest allegations were a reaction to a judge narrowing the case against celebrities who promoted FTX. Fenwick described the move as a last-minute attempt to keep weak arguments alive by trying to paint lawyers as promoters, a theory it said doesn’t hold up.

Get up to $30,050 in trading rewards when you join Bybit today