If it was only that it wouldn't have been mentioned in court.
Exactly. When we are talking about deficits of hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, no judge is going to care about 0.075 BTC (<$600). There is also a big difference between holding bitcoin as it is needed for normal business operations, and investing in to bitcoin, which is what the transcript says. $600 could barely be called an investment for an average citizen - it certainly isn't for a multi billion dollar company.
More details are needed for clarification, but I'd be very surprised if said details were in Tether's favor.
When you are testifying under oath, or speaking to a judge as an officer of the court, you need to be sure it is accurate if you say "zero" or "never", most lawyers will say to not give these types of answers, but sometimes that is unavoidable. If the answer is not "zero", you must make the disclosure the amount is non-zero if asked. You cannot give "zero" as an amount just because the amount is insignificant.
I think the bitcoin as described is more accurately described as a "business expense" than an "investment"
