Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Caroline Ellison, the former boss of the trading firm through which FTX gambled billions of dollars in customer funds, has been sentenced to two years in prison, despite aiding prosecutors in the criminal case against Sam Bankman-Fried, the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange’s founder.

Judge Lewis Kaplan imposed the sentence during a hearing in a New York federal court on Tuesday. “To all the victims and everyone I harmed . . . I am so so sorry,” a tearful Ellison told the court ahead of Kaplan’s decision. “I am deeply ashamed.”

The penalty for Ellison, who ran FTX-affiliated trading fund Alameda Research, contrasts sharply with the 25-year prison sentence handed to Bankman-Fried in March, which is among the longest US sentences ever for a white-collar criminal. Another former FTX executive, Ryan Salame, received a 90-month sentence in May.

FTX was one of the world’s biggest crypto exchanges when it collapsed in November 2022 following revelations that Alameda had secretly siphoned billions of dollars in customer deposits.

Ellison, who quickly pleaded guilty to fraud and money-laundering charges soon after FTX’s implosion, testified for several days at Bankman-Fried’s trial, in which she was the star witness.

She walked the jury through spreadsheets, internal documents and private Signal chats that painted a picture of a years-long criminal conspiracy by the one-time crypto billionaire. 

While on the stand, Ellison revealed the FTX founder had directed her and her ex-colleagues to steal roughly $10bn of customer deposits from the exchange to fund risky investments and repay loans.

She said Bankman-Fried had directed her to create seven “alternative” balance sheets for Alameda, some of which disguised billions of dollars of kickbacks to FTX executives, and was ordered to cover up how the trading group was “borrowing $10bn from FTX customers”.

A version of Alameda’s accounts that made its “assets look larger” was provided to crypto lenders, including Genesis, which was calling in loans amid a sharp downturn in the sector, Ellison testified. Genesis’s lending unit later went bankrupt.

Prosecutors had urged leniency for Ellison, 29. In a letter to Kaplan ahead of the hearing, they highlighted how Ellison “was crucial to the government’s successful prosecution of Samuel Bankman-Fried for one of the largest financial frauds in history”, and provided “substantial assistance in the investigation”.

They added that Ellison, who was formerly in an “on-again, off-again” romantic relationship with Bankman-Fried, was humiliated in the press as a result of her testimony and had her private conversations with a therapist divulged in Michael Lewis’s book on the FTX collapse.

“The government cannot think of another co-operating witness in recent history who has received a greater level of attention and harassment,” they wrote.

A graduate of Stanford University, Ellison met Bankman-Fried at high-speed trading company Jane Street, before leaving to join Alameda with him. She was in charge of running the trading firm and had described feeling trapped and pulled into Bankman-Fried’s warped moral worldview.

While awaiting sentencing, Ellison has written a novella “set in Edwardian England and loosely based on her sister Kate’s imagined amorous exploits”, the former executive’s mother revealed in a letter to the court.

Two other former senior FTX executives who also pleaded guilty, Nishad Singh and Gary Wang, are set to be sentenced later this year.

OVER half a million young people are thought to be missing out on an average of £2,212 which is being held in forgotten bank accounts.

Child Trust Funds are long-term, tax-free savings accounts which were set up for every child born between September 2002 and January 2 2011.

1

The Government deposited £250 for every child during that time period, or £500 if they came from a low income family earning around £16,000 a year or below.

An extra £250 or £500, depending on their families’ economic status, was deposited when the child turned seven.

In 2010, this was reduced to £50 for better off households and £100 for those on a lower income.

The scheme was eventually scrapped in 2011 as part of cost-cutting measures following the 2009 financial crisis and was later replaced with Junior ISAs.

Currently, parents or friends can deposit up to £9,000 into the child’s account tax-free, with the money usually invested into shares.

The youngest children across Britian to have these accounts are about 13 years old, so have around five years before they can access the cash.

It is important to note that savings in these accounts are not held by the Government but are held in banks, building societies or other saving providers. 

The money stays in the account until it’s withdrawn or re-invested.

Young people can take control of their Child Trust Fund at 16, but can only withdraw funds when they turn 18 and the account matures.

However, new figures released by the HMRC have found that more than 670,000 18-22 year olds are yet to claim their Child Trust Fund.

The tax office said that the average savings pot is worth £2,212.

Angela MacDonald, HMRC’s second permanent secretary and deputy chief executive, said the government wants to “reunite young people with their money and we’re making the process as simple as possible.”

She added: “You don’t need to pay anyone to find your Child Trust Fund for you, locate yours today by searching ‘find your Child Trust Fund’ on GOV.UK.”

How to track down a Child Trust Fund

If you were born in the UK between 2002 and 2006 it is worth checking to see if you have cash in a Child Trust Fund.

Parents were either given a voucher to set one up or HMRC set one up on a child’s behalf.

There are a number of third party groups offering to search for Child Trust Funds but it worth noting that they will charge a fee so you might loose a chunk of your money.

The Government has a free tool you can use online to help track down your fund.

You can find this by searching for “find a Child Trust Fund” on GOV.UK.

You’ll need to have a few personal details to hand to do the search, including your date of birth and National Insurance (NI) number.

Your NI number remains the same for your entire life. It’s made up of two letters, six numbers and a final letter. 

You can find this number on your payslips or by downloading the HMRC app, which can be downloaded on the Apple or Google Play Store.

When you’re done filling this out, HMRC will then send you a letter revealing what company has your Child Trust Fund.

What to do once you have claimed the money

Usually, people put the cash straight into a bank account, invest it, or transfer it into an ISA.

You can also ask your Child Trust Fund Provider to give you the money and get it cashed into your bank account.

This way you’ll need to share the bank account details you wish to transfer the cash into with HMRC.

But if you’d rather invest it, you can transfer it into an ISA.

The Sun recently broke down whether or not an ISA is right for you, which you can read here.

The case of brothers Lyle and Erik Menendez who gunned down their parents at their Beverley Hills family home commanded global attention in the 90s.

The pair were convicted on two counts of first-degree murder and conspiracy to murder their parents Jose and Kitty and sentenced to life in prison without parole in 1996.

Almost 30 years later, the story is still grabbing the headlines after Netflix released its latest true crime series Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story.

The nine-episode drama, based on the compelling court case, was created by Ryan Murphy and Ian Brennan who were behind the first Monsters series about US serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer.

This latest show has claimed the number one spot in the streaming services dramas since it’s release on 19 September.

But it has also courted controversy with many criticising its portrayal of the brothers.

Why is there controversy around Netflix’s Monsters?

Some viewers have expressed concerns about the treatment of the two brothers, who have consistently claimed they were the victims of physical, emotional and sexual abuse at the hands of their parents.

The Netflix drama has chronicled the story from both Lyle and Erik’s perspectives but also that of their deceased parents Jose and Kitty Menendez.

Taking to social media, some viewers said they felt the brothers had become victims once again as a result of their depiction in the show.

One wrote: “Sensitive about the Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story on Netflix because the Menendez brother’s story is one of deep trauma and injustice.

“I don’t feel anyone should be telling their stories unless they’re factual and portraying them as the victims they really are.”

There is also a suggestion made within the drama that the brothers were in an incestuous relationship, which Lyle had denied during the trial.

A viewer criticised this online writing: “Confused why Netflix made the decision to further victimise Erik and Lyle Menendez by inventing facts

“Was hoping this was an opportunity for truth that could help not salacious fiction.”

The incest line was also debunked by Robert Rand, who wrote The Menendez Murders: The Shocking Untold Story of the Menendez Family and the Killings that Stunned the Nation.

He told The Hollywood Reporter: “I don’t believe that Erik and Lyle Menendez were ever lovers.

Advertisement

“I think that’s a fantasy that was in the mind of Dominick Dunne [the reporter portrayed in the series by Nathan Lane].”

Aside from viewers comments, the critics have also expressed their displeasure with the series in their reviews.

Jesse Hassenger, writing for The Guardian, said: “This is probably supposed to come across as multifaceted.

“Instead, it’s an exhausting, repetitive alternation between two overplayed notes: the brothers as victims twisted and broken by years of abuse, and the brothers as delusional, sloppy, possibly sociopathic connivers.”

Katie Rosseinsky reviewing the series for The Independent wrote: “Moments of high drama sometimes come across as inadvertently camp: one scene in the first episode, in which Sevigny brutally whips a toupee from her son’s head, leaving him bald and morose, feels destined to become a meme.

Advertisement

“Sequences like this, interspersed with exposition-laden dialogue about the police investigation, mean the tone oscillates from silly to serious. “

While Variety described it as a “repetitive slog” after the fifth episode.

“The show falls into the deep end.”, wrote Aramide Tinubu. “The unwieldy tone, which teeters between ominous and light camp (there’s a shocking toupee and overdone homoeroticism), implodes on itself, and the rest of the episodes are a repetitive slog.”

She concluded: “Despite the gripping subject matter and the outstanding performances, Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story has no idea what it wants to be.

Advertisement

“Therefore, it just dissolves into a retelling of unspeakable abuses and gruesome crimes.”

What have the Menendez brothers said about Monsters?

Erik Menendez, who is currently serving a life sentence with his brother Lyle at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in California, issued a statement on X via his wife Tammi Menendez the day after the Netflix series launched on Thursday 19 September.

In it he said: “I believed we had moved beyond the lies and ruinous character portrayals of Lyle, creating a caricature of Lyle rooted in horrible and blatant lies rampant in the show.

“I can only believe they were done so on purpose.

Advertisement

“It is with a heavy heart that I say, I believe Ryan Murphy cannot be this naive and inaccurate about the facts of our lives so as to do this without bad intent.”

Making reference to the sexual abuse he and his brother said they endured during their upbringing, he added: “It is sad for me to know that Netflix’s dishonest portrayal of the tragedies surrounding our crime have taken the painful truths several steps backward – back through time to an era when the prosecution built a narrative on a belief system that males were not sexually abused, and that males experienced rape trauma differently than women.”

He added: “Those awful lies have been disrupted and exposed by countless brave victims over the last two decades who have broken through their personal shame and bravely spoken out.

“So now Murphy shapes his horrible narrative through vile and appalling character portrayals of Lyle and of me and disheartening slander.”

And he asked: “Is the truth not enough? Let the truth stand as the truth.

Advertisement

“How demoralizing to know that one man with power can undermine decades of progress in shedding light on childhood trauma.”

How has Ryan Murphy responded to the criticism?

In an interview with US show Entertainment Tonight, Ryan Murphy, who created the show with Ian Brennan, responded to Erik Menendez’s comments saying he had much to say on the topic.

“I think it’s interesting that he’s issued a statement without having seen the show”, he said, “It’s really, really hard — if it’s your life — to see your life up on screen.”

He added that he felt he and the show’s creators had given the brothers a fair hearing in the drama.

Advertisement

“The thing that I find interesting that he doesn’t mention in his quote, is if you watch the show, I would say 60 to 65 per cent of our show in the scripts and in the film form centre around the abuse and what they claim happened to them”, he said, “And we do it very carefully and we give them their day in court and they talk openly about it.”

He said they had spent three years researching for the show and that there were four people’s perspectives to be included in the piece.

“What about the parents?”, he continued. “We had an obligation as storytellers to also try and put in their perspective based on our research, which we did.”

Murphy said he was “very proud” of the work and of the acting in it.

China has announced it is investigating the company that owns US fashion brands Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein for suspected “discriminatory measures” against Xinjiang cotton companies.

The move marks a new effort by Beijing to fight back against allegations from western officials and human rights activists that cotton and other goods in the region have been produced using forced labour from the Uyghur ethnic group.

The US banned imports from the area in 2021, citing those concerns.

China’s Ministry of Commerce accused the firm of “boycotting Xinjiang cotton and other products without any factual basis”.

PVH, which owns the two brands and has a significant presence in China as well as the US, did not respond to a request for comment.

It has previously said it complies with laws in the regions where it does business, including the US Xinjiang law.

It has 30 days to respond to the Chinese authorities, at which point it could be added to the country’s “unreliable entities” list, raising the prospect of further punishment.

Cullen Hendrix, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute of International Economics, said it was not clear exactly what prompted the investigation into PVH now.

But he said the announcement was likely to hurt the firm’s reputation among Chinese shoppers – and send a wider warning to global firms of the risks of simply bowing to western concerns.

“China is, to a certain extent, flexing its muscle and reminding, not necessarily western governments, but western firms … that actions have consequences,” he said.

“This same kind of naming-and-shaming tactic, that human rights organisations in the west have used, can be weaponised here.”

The investigation of PVH comes as tensions between China and the west have been growing on a range of issues, including electric cars and manufacturing.

On Monday, the US proposed rules to ban the use of certain technology in Chinese and Russian cars, citing security threats.

China has previously put US firms on its unreliable entities list, which it created as trade tensions heated up between Beijing and Washington.

Those firms were major defence contractors, such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, over their business in Taiwan.

Mr Hendrix said the decision to target PVH – a consumer-facing firm with a clearly recognisable US brand – showed the two countries’ disputes were widening beyond areas such as defence and advanced technologies.

“These things have a way of spilling over,” he said. “It’s affecting a growing number of supply chains across different sectors of the economy.”

In its annual report, PVH warned investors of revenue and reputational risks stemming from the fight over Xinjiang.

It noted that the issue had been “subject to significant scrutiny and contention in China, the United States and elsewhere, resulting in criticism against multinational companies, including us”.

The company was named in a 2020 report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute that identified dozens of firms that were allegedly benefiting from labour abuses in Xinjiang.

At the time PVH said it took the reports seriously and would continue to work to address the matter.

PVH employs more than 29,000 people globally and does more than 65% of its sales outside of the US.

ASDA shoppers are delighted after discovering a Cadbury chocolate advent calendar is selling for just 85p in stores.

The deal has been shared on the Extreme Couponing and Bargaining Facebook group and users are shocked by the reduced price.

1

The advent calendar is selling in stores for 85p.

It is a Cadbury Dairy milk advent calendar, containing 24 milk chocolates in various festive shapes.

On the Cadbury website, the calendar sells for £2.25, meaning this Asda bargain is 62% discounted from the original price.

One excited member commented: “I’m going to go look for this after work”.

While another person responded: “get me one if they do have it please”.

The item is available in store and online on the Asda website for the bargain price

When we searched around, we couldn’t find an offer cheaper than this one for the same advent calendar.

On Ocado the calendar is priced at £2.25, which is still 62% pricier than Asda.

And in Poundland you can buy the calendar for £2.75, making the Asda purchase almost a 70% save.

And for shoppers looking for something a bit different, Asda’s entire advent calendar range is available online and in store.

White chocolate lovers can purchase a white chocolate Cadbury Calendar for £2, which is selling on Amazon for as much as £8.89 – meaning an entire £6.89 off your purchase.

Shoppers can also satisfy their sweet tooth at Asda with Maltesers, Milkybar, Galaxy or Terry’s Chocolate Orange options, both for the price of £2.50.

In comparison, Morrisons is selling the Galaxy Smooth Milk Chocolate Christmas for £3.25, which is 75p extra.

There is also a Swizzels Sweet Shop calendar available for £6.00, which is sold in other retailers such as Selfridges for £8.99 – meaning a £2.99 save.

Other places already offering great deals on low priced advent calendars include Poundland and Home Bargains.

Poundland sells alternative non-chocolate calendar options, such as a Hot Wheels or Christmas barbie advent for as cheap as £1.

And in Home Bargains, punters can buy a Polar Express or Grinch style calendar for £1.25.

Despite these low prices, the iconic Asda Cadbury advent was still the cheapest option we found online.

To find your nearest Asda store, use the store locator tool on the retailer’s website.

And to secure the best prices, make sure you shop around, by comparing prices in Whats New or Deals via multiple retailers’ websites.

What else is new for Christmas items in Asda?

Asda have released a full Christmas range already – from Christmas dinner items, to bakery goods, to Christmas gifts and festive drink products.

On the Asda website you can “build your own cheeseboard”, with cheeses starting from £1.95.

The Wensleydale Creamery Hot and Spicy cheddar is currently reduced at £1.95 from £2.20.

For £3.25, punters can also buy a box of 12 pigs and blankets, and 12 Golden Yorkshire Puddings for 220g.

There are also great deals on wine, where if you buy 6 bottles you save 25% off – perfect for those hosting Christmas this year.

And Christmas gift sets start from just £4.00, such as the Lynx Africa duo which is selling on the Boots website for £8 – double the price.

However, Boots is also great for gift sets, with up to 2,212 options to shop from.

For example, if you’re just looking for something small, hand cream gift sets only cost the punter £2.50 on the Boots website.

In order to get the best prices, we recommend you shop around before you buy.

To compare prices efficiently, use the “sort by” tools on each retailer’s website, so you can see the cheapest items first and surf the best deals.

Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing money-sm@news.co.uk.

Plus, you can join our Sun Money Chats and Tips Facebook group to share your tips and stories