The FTX collapse did not end when the cryptocurrency exchange filed for bankruptcy in November 2022. Nearly a year later, the estate began pursuing people who, according to its court filings, managed to get substantial assets off the platform while ordinary customers were struggling to withdraw their money. Among those targeted was Michael Burgess, a former senior FTX Group employee who became the central figure in a $157.3 million clawback action brought by FTX Trading Ltd. and West Realm Shires Services Inc. The case is significant not because Burgess has been criminally convicted he has not but because FTX’s bankruptcy estate alleges that he and several people connected to him used insider relationships and corporate accounts to obtain preferential treatment during the exchange’s final days.
The publicly available court record identifies him as Michael Burgess. It does not establish a reliable age or a confirmed alias, and searches of credible public sources did not produce a trustworthy birth date. The complaint says Burgess was formally employed by Salameda Ltd., a Hong Kong-incorporated, non-debtor affiliate that FTX says was controlled by Sam Bankman-Fried. Although Salameda was his formal employer, FTX described Burgess as having worked in senior roles within the wider FTX Group, including as a Business Development Manager and Head of Partnerships at FTX.com. He had left his formal FTX-related role by January 2022.
After leaving, according to the complaint, Burgess continued trading cryptocurrency through FTX.com and FTX US. The litigation names not only Burgess but his brother Matthew Burgess, their mother Lesley Burgess, former colleagues Huy Xuan “Kevin” Nguyen and Jing Yu “Darren” Wong, and two associated companies: British Virgin Islands-registered 3Twelve Ventures Ltd. and Hong Kong-incorporated BDK Consulting Ltd. FTX alleged that 3Twelve was owned and controlled by Michael Burgess, Nguyen and Wong, while BDK was similarly controlled by those three men. Lesley Burgess, meanwhile, was identified as the registered owner of an FTX.com account that was primarily funded by transfers from an account registered to Michael Burgess.
The central allegation concerns what happened during the 90 day period before FTX’s November 11, 2022 bankruptcy filing. Under U.S. bankruptcy law, certain transfers made shortly before a bankruptcy can be challenged as preferential transfers if they improperly put one creditor or customer in a better position than others. FTX’s lawsuit seeks to avoid and recover those transfers, arguing that the defendants collectively benefited from withdrawals worth approximately $157.3 million. More than $123 million of that amount, based on cryptocurrency prices selected by FTX as of August 31, 2023, was withdrawn on or after November 7 just days before the bankruptcy filing.
The allegation involving Burgess is particularly specific. FTX’s complaint says approximately $73 million was withdrawn through an account registered to him in November 2022. It further alleges that Matthew Burgess, who was still working for the FTX Group, enlisted other employees to accelerate pending withdrawal requests from an FTX US account belonging to Michael Burgess, while representing the account as his own. FTX says this was not simply a case of an ordinary customer making a withdrawal: the estate alleges that the defendants exploited their relationships with FTX personnel while the withdrawal queue was becoming increasingly difficult for ordinary users to navigate.
The complaint also describes a broader trading relationship. FTX alleged that, between January and November 2022, Burgess, Nguyen and Wong conducted cryptocurrency trading through entities they owned or controlled, with monthly notional trading volumes ranging from roughly $100 million to $400 million. The filing says substantial amounts of cryptocurrency and fiat currency had flowed to the defendants from accounts associated with FTX Group entities. Among the transfers identified were more than one million SOL sent to an account associated with Burgess, 13.1 million FTT sent to Wong and nearly $4 million in purported bonuses involving Burgess, Nguyen and Wong. FTX also alleged that Wong generated more than $70 million in gains from FTT trading, including approximately $30 million shortly before FTX’s bankruptcy. These figures are allegations contained in the civil complaint, not judicial findings that the money was unlawfully obtained.
FTX’s own later investigation gave additional weight to the case. The court-appointed examiner’s report states that Sullivan & Cromwell, assisted by Alvarez & Marsal and Nardello, reviewed relevant accounts, trading activity and communications concerning approximately $157 million in preference-period transfers. The investigation resulted in the avoidance action against Burgess, Nguyen, Wong, Matthew Burgess and their affiliates. The examiner’s report specifically identifies Michael Burgess as a former Business Development Manager and Head of Partnerships at FTX.com and notes that Matthew Burgess remained employed by FTX Group when the disputed withdrawals occurred.
There is an important distinction between what the lawsuit alleges and what has been established in court. The case is a civil bankruptcy recovery action, not a criminal prosecution. I found no credible public record showing that Michael Burgess has been criminally charged, pleaded guilty, convicted, fined by a regulator or sentenced in connection with these allegations. The complaint contains causes of action involving preferential and fraudulent transfers, but those allegations should not be treated as proof of criminal fraud. The available records likewise do not establish that Burgess admitted wrongdoing or agreed to a settlement admitting liability. The defendants have contested the case.
Their position became publicly visible in May 2025, when Chamberlains Law Firm, acting for Burgess, sent Offshore Alert a formal demand seeking removal of its article about the FTX complaint. The letter said the article contained “factual inaccuracies, misrepresentations and defamatory statements” and demanded that it be removed and its data deleted, warning that formal legal action could follow. The document was signed by Stipe Vuleta, Managing Director of Chamberlains. Offshore Alert subsequently published the letter itself, making the dispute over the reporting part of the public record.
The litigation has not produced the kind of final resolution that would allow the allegations to be described as proven misconduct. FTX’s 2024 disclosure statement said the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 20, 2023, that briefing was completed on March 12, 2024, and that discovery was ongoing at that time. Public FTX docket material located as recently as March 2026 also continued to identify lawyers representing Burgess and the other defendants, although the material reviewed does not establish a final judgment, settlement or dismissal of the adversary proceeding.
Burgess’s present whereabouts and current occupation are less clear. Public records connect his legal representation to Australia, including Chamberlains offices in Sydney and Canberra, but that does not establish that he currently lives there. I found no sufficiently reliable current source confirming a residence, employer or business activity that can safely be attributed to the same Michael Burgess. That absence matters because there are numerous people with the same name online, and conflating them would risk attaching unrelated careers or activities to the FTX defendant.
What remains unusually clear is the scale of the dispute. FTX’s estate is attempting to recover money for creditors from transactions that occurred while the exchange was collapsing and customers were discovering that their own withdrawals could no longer be completed. The complaint puts the defendants’ collective withdrawals at about $157.3 million, with more than $73 million attributed to transfers benefiting Burgess. Whether those transfers ultimately withstand the defendants’ legal challenges is a matter for the bankruptcy court.
The broader significance lies in the question the case raises about unequal access during a financial collapse. FTX customers did not stand on equal footing once the exchange began running out of liquidity. The estate’s allegations describe a situation in which people with knowledge of the company and relationships inside it may have been able to move assets while the ordinary withdrawal queue deteriorated. That allegation is serious, but the legal process still has to determine what was lawful, what was preferential, what was fraudulent and what, if anything, must ultimately be returned. Until that process produces a final ruling, Michael Burgess remains a civil defendant accused of improper transfers not a person proven guilty of a crime. The case nevertheless offers a revealing look at the unfinished financial reckoning left behind by FTX: when a giant exchange fails, the damage is not measured only by the billions that disappear. It is also measured by who was able to get out, when they got out, and whether the law can recover assets that creditors say should never have escaped in the first place.
Source:
OffshoreAlert
————-
Disclaimer:
Some content on Reportingscams.com is published under our guest post program and is provided by third-party contributors. Reporting scams does not create, verify, or take responsibility for the views, accuracy, or claims expressed in such content.
