Bankman-Fried’s Cross-Examination: The Cat-and-Mouse Game
During Sam Bankman-Fried’s trial on charges of fraud and conspiracy, Assistant United States Attorney Danielle Sassoon engaged in a cat-and-mouse game with the defendant. One particular exchange highlighted this dynamic, with Bankman-Fried responding to questions with deferrals and uncertainty. Sassoon asked if taking money from FTX to pay back lenders constituted margin trading, to which Bankman-Fried responded ambiguously. Despite Judge Lewis A. Kaplan’s request for a direct answer, Bankman-Fried remained uncertain. Throughout the cross-examination, Sassoon presented evidence and pressed Bankman-Fried on his previous statements, often receiving deflections or incomplete responses.
Sassoon Challenges Bankman-Fried’s “I Don’t Knows”
Sassoon consistently challenged Bankman-Fried’s frequent use of “I don’t know” or “I don’t recall” during the cross-examination. She provided evidence such as articles, tweets, photographs, and financial statements to cast doubt on his assertions. Whenever Bankman-Fried deviated from the question or responded evasively, Sassoon persisted until she obtained a satisfactory answer or enough deferrals to support her argument. An example involved Bankman-Fried denying making a statement about his long hair being important for business perception. Sassoon produced an article quoting him saying exactly that, leading to another ambiguous response from Bankman-Fried.
The Verdict Remains Uncertain
It is unclear whether Bankman-Fried’s elusive answers were enough to create reasonable doubt in the jury’s minds regarding the government’s case. Deliberations are expected to begin by the end of the week, and it remains to be seen how they will interpret his testimony. The Block will continue to cover Bankman-Fried’s cross-examination as the trial progresses.
Hot Take: Will Bankman-Fried’s Responses Impact the Verdict?
The cross-examination of Sam Bankman-Fried has revealed his evasive responses and frequent use of “I don’t know” or “I don’t recall” during questioning. While Assistant United States Attorney Danielle Sassoon pressed him with evidence and challenged his assertions, it remains to be seen whether the jury will find these responses convincing. The trial’s outcome hangs in the balance as deliberations approach. Bankman-Fried’s uncertain and ambiguous answers may influence the verdict, but only time will tell.
By
By
By
By
By
By