Because he's stupid and didn't read anything the company's lawyers wrote. That's the whole defense. Saying he loaned money to another company because he didn't know any better works better as a stupidity defense to get a more lenient sentence than what coffeebeqn wrote.
Assuming for sake of discussion he really is that dumb, then he was being used as a puppet by someone else. He'll need to identify that person or people and their stories and evidence supporting them will need to be compared with his.
I mean, it's not like this was some super fine print detail here though... It (we hold your money/crypto for you 1:1 isolated and separated) was basically the entire point of the product.
does that even make sense? If it was a loan against his customer's assets then the assets would still be there, and the exchange would simply be broke. If the funds are gone then it doesn't matter what for. He had no business lending his customers money away, he ran an exchange.
