- Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder and former CEO of FTX crypto exchange, is challenging the U.S. Department of Justice’s criminal charges in court.
- His lawyer describes the Department of Justice’s demands as baseless and overly broad, alleging they are attempting to accept evidence related to uncharged behaviors.
- This court move follows the Department of Justice’s requests to prevent SBF’s expert witnesses from testifying.
Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of the now-defunct FTX crypto exchange, is fighting the U.S. Department of Justice’s criminal charges in court. His defense argues that the charges are unsupported by law and inapplicable, making them unfit for court consideration.
Claims Deemed Baseless and Excessively Broad
Mark Cohen, SBF’s attorney, has penned a statement that labels the demands presented by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) as baseless and excessively broad. Cohen argues that many of the issues raised by the government cannot be properly addressed at the current stage. The statement alleges that the demands are trying to accept irrelevant and biased evidence related to behaviors that are no longer charged or never charged, undermine potential defenses, and accept hearsay and other inappropriate evidence in broad categories. The prosecutor’s demands are argued to be unsupported by law and impractical, and therefore should not be accepted.
Appeal Process for Bail Decision Underway
This statement follows numerous applications by the Department of Justice requesting the court to intervene in various aspects of the case. On August 28, the government submitted a petition to prevent all of SBF’s expert witnesses from testifying in court. The Department of Justice argued that all proposed experts, along with their accompanying statements, suffered from a series of deficiencies and warranted disqualification from the case. A day later, on August 29, the prosecutor submitted another petition, characterizing SBF’s fraud defense as irrelevant in its current form and requesting additional explanations to the already planned defense.
Meanwhile, SBF’s lawyers have filed for temporary release, stating that the facilities provided by the authorities are insufficient for preparing for the hearing in October. The lawyers are also in the process of appealing the court’s decision to lift bail on August 11. The defense alleges that the bail was revoked as “retaliation” for exercising First Amendment rights.
Conclusion
As the legal battle continues, it remains to be seen how the court will rule on these matters. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the cryptocurrency industry, particularly in terms of how legal authorities approach and handle alleged criminal activities within the sector.
