- Sam Bankman-Fried’s legal team has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing significant errors made in his trial.
- The defense claims that evidence indicating Bankman-Fried’s belief in FTX’s solvency was improperly excluded, skewing the jury’s perspective.
- Bankman-Fried’s attorney, Alexandra Shapiro, argues that the court’s instructions to the jury diminished the government’s burden of proof concerning his intent to defraud.
Sam Bankman-Fried’s legal team appeals for a new trial, citing critical errors and exclusion of crucial evidence during his trial over FTX collapse.
Arguments on Exclusion of Critical Evidence
In their appeal, the defense argues that crucial evidence demonstrating Bankman-Fried’s belief that FTX was solvent at the time of its collapse was wrongfully excluded. This evidence was critical in showing that he acted in good faith. The omission of this evidence allowed the prosecution to present a one-sided story, suggesting FTX customers’ funds were irretrievably lost.
Impact of Exclusion on Jury Perception
The court’s decision to exclude this evidence misled the jury, the defense argues. The government’s narrative falsely convinced the jury that stakeholders lost their investments permanently. Prohibiting this defense caused the jury to receive only a partial view, impacting their judgment unfairly.
Testimony Relied on Legal Advice Omitted
Bankman-Fried’s legal representation contends that excluding his testimony about reliance on legal advice during FTX operations was another error. According to his attorneys, this prevented him from defending against claims that he knowingly engaged in fraudulent activities. This exclusion, they argue, painted an incomplete picture, vital for understanding his decisions and intentions.
Problems with Jury Instructions
The appeal further criticizes the jury instructions, stating they diminished the government’s burden of proof regarding his intent. The defense argues that the instructions inappropriately suggested that Bankman-Fried could be found guilty without clear evidence of fraudulent intent. This, combined with other errors, calls for a reversal of the judgment.
Challenges to Forfeiture Judgment
Finally, the defense disputes the $11 billion restitution order. They argue that the statute used to justify this judgment does not support such extensive financial penalties, especially considering Bankman-Fried’s lack of intent to permanently deprive FTX customers of their funds. The legal team insists on a new trial with a different judge to ensure fairness and impartiality.
Conclusion
Sam Bankman-Fried’s defense team has presented a compelling argument for a new trial, emphasizing the exclusion of crucial evidence and problematic jury instructions. They contend that the district court’s errors significantly impacted the trial’s fairness. A revised hearing is asserted to be necessary to ensure an impartial judgment.
