This question results positively if Going Infinite contains an explicit assertion that SBF was aware that he was using customer funds in a way which was illegal or broke "commonsense" morality but did it anyway because of consequentialism/utilitarianism.

The resolution of this question is independent of how compelling the evidence presented in favor of this assertion is; if the book asserts it with poor evidence then this question still resolves positive.

The book must either make this assertion itself or quote Sam in a way that makes this assertion clear; if the book says something like "some people believe that SBF did this because of utilitarianism," that does not count. If the book raises this as a possibility but does not explicitly assert it, that does not count.

This question is only about the book; if there are movie or other adaptations they do not count for the resolution of this criterion. Similarly assertions made by the author outside this book in e.g. interviews do not count for the resolution of this question.