Türkçe
Español
The United States Prosecutors have filed a motion opposing the release on bail of former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, claiming that he may attempt to influence witnesses and that no release condition would ensure the safety of the witnesses. The prosecutors responded to Bankman-Fried’s appeal against the revocation of bail, dismissing his allegations as baseless.
SBF Committed the Same Crime Twice
In their response, the prosecutors argued that SBF had been found to have violated court orders by committing or attempting to commit witness tampering twice. Therefore, considering his consistent evasion of pre-trial release conditions, it was unlikely that Bankman-Fried would comply with the bail conditions. SBF’s attempt to contact witnesses first came to light when he contacted the former General Counsel of FTX US, a potential trial witness, in January of this year.
The second example occurred in July 2023 when a New York Times article revealed private messages of Caroline Ellison, the former CEO of Alameda, and SBF’s partner. SBF’s attorney confirmed that the messages were leaked by the former FTX CEO himself. The prosecutors reached out to the District Court to emphasize how SBF secretly provided Ellison’s private and potentially embarrassing writings to discredit her and potentially influence the jury’s perception in the case.
Contacting Witnesses is a Crime
On July 26, prosecutors appealed for the revocation of Bankman-Fried’s bail defense due to his violation of bail conditions and attempts to tamper with witnesses. Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan from the Southern District of New York revoked SBF’s bail on August 11 after determining that SBF had made contact with witnesses for the purpose of influencing or intimidating them. The former FTX CEO had been released on $250 million bail in December 2022.
On August 28, SBF’s lawyers appealed the bail revocation decision, claiming that he had the right to speak to the press about Ellison because he was protected under the First Amendment. However, the prosecutors argued that Judge Kaplan had taken into account SBF’s First Amendment rights in his decision. The judge stated:
“Under the law, when communication is made with the intent to intimidate or influence a witness, or as part of an effort to do so, that is a crime, and it has nothing to do with the First Amendment.”
The prosecutors presented two main arguments against SBF’s appeal. First, they argued that the District Court did not act clearly in error in finding reasonable cause to believe that Bankman-Fried had attempted to tamper with witnesses while being released on bail. Second, they claimed that Judge Kaplan did not act clearly in error when finding possible cause that Bankman-Fried attempted to change the statement of Witness 1.
The prosecutors also argued that the defendants did not dispute or object to the court’s finding that SBF attempted to testify against the former FTX US attorney and that the judge determined it to be a clear attempt to tamper with witnesses.
