US v. SBF: Caroline Ellison says Alameda paid $100M to $150M in crypto transfers to Chinese officials to unfreeze its OKX and Huobi trading accounts, worth ~$1B
Ellison’s testimony had already described SBF directing the use of FTX customer funds and, separately, Alameda’s large borrowing from FTX users as its losses mounted. The new account-freezing allegation adds a cross-border operational pressure point to that account of Alameda’s conduct.
It matters because the trial record is moving beyond balance-sheet shortfalls toward the methods allegedly used to keep Alameda’s trading operations functioning. The allegation remains testimony in a criminal trial, not a finding of wrongdoing by OKX or Huobi.
First-order effects
The testimony gives prosecutors another alleged action undertaken to recover access to roughly $1 billion in frozen Alameda trading accounts, while increasing the factual scope SBF’s defense must address.
OKX and Huobi are drawn into the trial narrative as venues holding the affected Alameda accounts, though the report does not allege misconduct by either exchange.
Second-order effects
The alleged transfers sharpen scrutiny of how exchanges handle account freezes and counterparties facing cross-border enforcement or compliance restrictions.
For crypto firms relying on offshore trading venues, the episode highlights how inaccessible balances can become an operational and governance risk rather than merely a liquidity issue.
Third-order effects
If similar cases establish that major trading firms used illicit workarounds when accounts were frozen, regulators and institutional counterparties are likely to demand more auditable controls over account ownership, freezes, and fund movements.
The broader effect could be a wider reassessment of Alameda’s dependence on FTX funding: governance failures at affiliated trading and exchange businesses can compound compliance risks across jurisdictions.
The trend: This is one data point in crypto’s legitimacy gap, where fast-moving offshore market infrastructure is being tested against conventional expectations for custody, controls, and legal accountability.
AUSA: What does this say? Ellison: “Sam Bankman-Fried set the disappearing message time for 1 week.” AUSA: Did you speak in coded terms? Ellison: Yes. When we gave a large bribe to China - our accounts were frozen in a money laundering investigation.
Core memory unlocked. I was in court during SBF's trial when Caroline revealed FTX paid $150M for “the thing.” “The thing” being a bribe to Chinese officials to unfreeze accounts on other exchanges, after failing to siphon the $ through accounts set up by “Thai prostitutes” ❤️ [i…
Yes, Trabucco WAS co-CEO of Alameda at the time of the $100 million bribe to Chinese officials - he joked that staffer Handi's father - a Chinese government official presumably not on the take - might have turned them in. He left, and Caroline started tweeting...
Caroline Ellison testified that FTX paid a $150 MILLION bribe to the Chinese government to try and unlock some frozen accounts. But SBF didn't want her to put things like that in writing. So they just called it “The Thing.”
Alameda's Chinese bribe confession from Caroline Ellison Paid $100m bribe to withdraw the $1bn of funds stuck on OKX, Alameda used wallets of Thai prostitutes on the exchange unsure if bribe was to “CCP” or okex. bribe details were not uncovered as being out of scope 🦦
According to @innercitypress Sam Trabucco, co-CEO of Alameda, was named in court today as a co-conspirator with SBF in a $100M bribe to China for FTX. Despite not needing approval from Bermuda to press charges v. Trabucco, the DOJ has not. The DOJ and SEC are covering up Chinese.…