PANews reported on March 22 that, according to Cointelegraph, Silvergate Bank must face a class action lawsuit from FTX users who claim that the now-defunct bank assisted in the fraud of FTX and its affiliated trading company Alameda Research. In a March 20 order, San Diego Federal Court Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro dismissed Silvergate's motion to dismiss in June, arguing that the collective group had sufficiently alleged that Silvergate was aware of FTX's fraud, but benefited from it, and unfairly profited for itself at the expense of FTX users, an allegation that the bank denied. The court held that Silvergate owes a duty of care to FTX customers because its Silvergate trading network, which is designed to help transfer funds to crypto exchanges, is primarily for the benefit of FTX customers. The judge wrote that Silvergate deposited both FTX and Alameda in the bank and "processed transfers and deposits that sent FTX customers' money to Alameda; FTX initially had no bank account, so customers were instructed to remit money to Alameda's account." Predictably, allowing FTX customer funds to deposit into non-FTX accounts will result in fraud and harm the owners of those funds. ”。 Silvergate's revenue is derived from trading fees and interest deposited into exchange-related accounts. Silvergate's annual revenue before FTX was $7.6 million, and that figure jumped to $75.5 million after depositing it on the exchange, the order said. The order stated in Silvergate's motion to dismiss that the bank claimed it did not owe FTX customers a duty of care because the transactions alleged in the lawsuit were "not a material factor in the inability of FTX customers to withdraw funds" — rather, it was the fault of FTX and its co-founder, SBF. Silvergate also claimed that if it rejected a transfer from FTX, the exchange would find another bank — which the judge called "highly speculative" because it was "one of the few banks willing to serve the crypto industry."