Sam Trabucco Forfeits $70M Portfolio: Apartments, Yacht, and Claims in FTX Creditor Settlement

The ripple effects of the FTX collapse continue to deepen. On November 3rd, a significant development emerged as Sam Trabucco, the former co-CEO of Alameda Research, agreed to surrender approximately $70 million in assets to satisfy claims by FTX creditors. This settlement represents one of the most substantial asset recoveries targeting executives connected to the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange and its trading affiliate.

The Asset Forfeiture Breakdown

The specifics paint a picture of substantial personal wealth accumulated during his tenure at Alameda. Trabucco must relinquish two San Francisco residential properties valued at $8.7 million combined. Additionally, a 53-foot luxury yacht—purchased in March 2022 for $2.5 million—will be included in the forfeiture. Beyond tangible assets, he is also releasing his financial claims against other FTX creditors, representing the bulk of the $70 million total commitment. Court documents further reveal that Trabucco received roughly $40 million in what bankruptcy law classifies as “potentially avoidable transfers” during his Alameda tenure—funds that could be recovered and redistributed under clawback provisions if determined to have originated from FTX’s misappropriated estate.

Understanding Sam Trabucco’s Position in the Collapsed Empire

Before the implosion, Trabucco operated as co-CEO of Alameda Research and maintained close ties with Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder and central figure in the scandal. His departure came in August 2022, only months before both entities filed for bankruptcy protection. While Trabucco has consistently avoided formal admission of wrongdoing, his public communications on social media suggested knowledge of Alameda’s aggressive trading posture and appetite for high-risk strategies.

The structural problem underlying both organizations involved their intertwined operations. Alameda functioned as Bankman-Fried’s proprietary trading hedge fund while FTX served as the customer-facing exchange. Prosecutors have emphasized that this relationship created a dangerous cross-financing architecture where assets flowed between entities without proper segregation, ultimately destabilizing customer funds and precipitating the catastrophic collapse. The investigation has revealed systematic misuse of customer deposits to fund Alameda’s speculative positions—a fundamental betrayal of exchange custodial responsibilities.

The Bankruptcy Landscape and Recovery Efforts

Asset forfeiture agreements like Trabucco’s settlement represent the bankruptcy trustees’ systematic effort to recover value for hundreds of thousands of harmed creditors. This case sits within the broader constellation of enforcement actions targeting executives from both organizations. The bankruptcy filing ranks among the largest in financial history, with trustees methodically cataloging executive compensation, transfers, and personal acquisitions funded through company operations.

Bankman-Fried himself faces an array of criminal charges encompassing wire fraud, conspiracy, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and conspiracy to commit commodities fraud. His prosecution underscores the gravity of misconduct that prosecutors argue was foundational to the collapse rather than incidental to it.

What This Settlement Signals

Trabucco’s willingness to forfeit such substantial holdings suggests either a negotiated resolution to avoid more aggressive prosecution or a recognition of the legal exposure surrounding his period at Alameda. The asset recovery process demonstrates that courts and bankruptcy law can effectively pierce corporate structures and reclaim personal enrichment derived from fiduciary breaches.

This sequence of forfeitures and recoveries exposes fundamental governance failures within the cryptocurrency industry. The lack of operational segregation between trading entities and exchanges, minimal regulatory oversight of executive compensation, and weak internal controls that permitted unchecked cross-financing all contributed to the FTX disaster. The case has prompted regulatory bodies to reassess compliance frameworks and reporting requirements across digital asset platforms.