Former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried Rejects Prosecution’s Claims in Court

Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder and former CEO of the defunct cryptocurrency exchange FTX, submitted a statement to the court on September 1st, requesting the dismissal of the prosecutor’s charges. Bankman-Fried’s defense also emphasizes that the Department of Justice’s claims are not supported by law and are not feasible, making them irrelevant to the court’s decision.

Baseless and Overbroad Allegations

The statement, written by SBF’s lawyer Mark Cohen, describes the requests presented by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) as baseless and overbroad. Cohen argues that most of the issues raised by the government cannot be properly addressed at this stage.

The statement claims that the requests attempt to accept irrelevant and prejudiced evidence related to non-prosecuted or never prosecuted behaviors, undermine potential defenses, and accept hearsay and other inappropriate evidence in broad categories. It argues that the prosecutor’s demands are not supported by law, not feasible in practice, and therefore should not be accepted.

Bail Decision in the Appeals Process

This statement comes after numerous applications by the Department of Justice, requesting intervention in various aspects of the case. On August 28th, the government filed a motion to prevent all of SBF’s expert witnesses from testifying in court. The Department of Justice argued that the proposed experts suffered from a series of deficiencies, along with their accompanying statements, which warranted their exclusion from the case. The next day, on August 29th, the prosecutor filed another motion, deeming SBF’s defense of fraud allegations irrelevant and requesting additional statements to be added to the already planned defense.

Meanwhile, SBF’s lawyers filed a motion for temporary release, stating that the resources provided by the authorities were insufficient to prepare for the October hearing. The defense also appealed the decision to revoke bail, claiming that it was canceled as a “retaliation” for exercising First Amendment rights.