FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried's (SBFF) lawyers are moving to widen the scope of their questions to further prosecution witnesses after two weeks of damaging testimony by members of the dictator's inner circle.
SBF lawyers have raised concerns about what they say is a limit on their line of questioning with government witnesses, saying it has prevented them from prosecuting their client. To remedy this, he asked that the defense be given more room to present defense theories on cross-examination — and that the prosecution not present expert testimony against the litigant.
“The government has objected to the defense's efforts to cross-examine government witnesses outside of the state's theory, but the defense should not be prevented from ‘eliminating' those theories on cross-examination,” the attorneys wrote in their memo.
The request comes as Bankman-Fried's trial enters its third week and comes after a string of witnesses who described events led by the head of FTX to mislead investors, clients and auditors about the company's health and its relationship with Alameda Research — also founded by Bankman-Fried. Caroline Ellison, Alameda's CEO and banker Fried's ex-girlfriend, expressed her relief with emotion. No need to “lie anymore”. After Banman-Fried revealed that she was pressured to do so.
By framing the testimony of upcoming witnesses, the defense is seeking to prevent Bankman-Fried's image from further damaging the jury's view, said Daniel Silva, Buchalter's former assistant U.S. attorney and shareholder.
“They don't want more victims,” Silva told Decrypt. The victim's testimony, he continued, “makes the jury more sympathetic to the government's case,” and Bankman-Fried's legal team may be looking to channel that by building a fence around it. “[Bankman-Fried] He's trying to keep this damning evidence away from the jury.”
The defense is trying to argue that FTX is bound by its terms of service, which means it can't be charged with fraud, even if others understand what that means. This is a recognized defense in fraud cases: FTX will argue that it fulfilled its contractual obligations.
by them His own response A day later, prosecutors dismissed the defense as “simply wrong,” saying the statute was not limited to breach of written contract. Their evidence added that Bankman-Fried misappropriated client funds and repeatedly misrepresented how FTX handled them at the same time.
Prosecutors said they did not object to the cross-examination of defense witnesses, but argued against questions suggesting negligence in their dealings with FTX.
Therefore, there is no basis to exclude evidence or to issue any limiting instruction regarding the understanding and interpretation of the customer's beliefs in the context of the defendant's authorized statement of how the defendant handled FTX. Their property,” the prosecutor said in the application.
Silva said Bankaman-Fried's defense team is more likely to win an acquittal at trial, leaving limited options to attack the government's case. In contrast, prosecutors still have plenty of room to convict Banman-Fried.
“If there are seven cases pending now and there are three or four different theories on these charges, the prosecutors only have to prove one of them and they can argue for a maximum sentence of 20 years,” Silva explained. “On the contrary, SBF should be right on all [for acquittal].”
