## Prosecution’s Case Against Sam Bankman-Fried
Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicolas Roos presented a damning case against Sam Bankman-Fried, the former CEO and founder of FTX, in front of the jury. Roos accused Bankman-Fried of knowingly misappropriating customers’ money and lying about it under oath. He described FTX as a “pyramid of deceit” built on lies and false promises. According to Roos, as FTX users were trying to withdraw their savings during the collapse in November 2022, they realized their money was gone. Roos pointed to multiple instances where Bankman-Fried had the opportunity to rectify the situation but instead chose to take more funds for his own benefit.
## Misuse of Customers’ Funds
Roos highlighted several occasions where Bankman-Fried allegedly misused customers’ funds. In 2021, FTX bought back its own shares from Binance, even though Alameda did not have enough money for the deal and had to borrow from FTX. Bankman-Fried approved this transaction despite being aware of the lack of funds. Similar actions were taken with venture investments in other companies like Genesis Digital Assets, Anthropic, and K5.
In June 2022, when a bug was discovered in the accounting system revealing that Alameda had borrowed $10 billion from FTX, Bankman-Fried chose to circulate misleading versions of Alameda’s balance sheet instead of coming clean. In September 2022, despite Alameda’s debt reaching $14 billion and no feasible way to repay it according to Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison, Bankman-Fried continued spending on investments and unnecessary expenses.
## Reassuring Tweets Amidst Crisis
As the crisis unfolded at FTX in November 2022, Bankman-Fried opted to send reassuring yet misleading tweets instead of acknowledging the deep problems he was aware of. Roos argued that Bankman-Fried’s claims of ignorance about the state of FTX and Alameda were false. The prosecutor pointed out contradictions between Bankman-Fried’s testimony and that of his former employees, suggesting that he was well aware of what was happening.
## Defense’s Rebuttal
In response to the prosecution’s case, Bankman-Fried’s lead attorney, Mark Cohen, attacked the government’s narrative. Cohen argued that the government’s core case was based on a false premise and that Bankman-Fried had built legitimate businesses in the crypto world. He acknowledged that poor risk management was a critical mistake but emphasized that it was not a crime.
Cohen appealed to the jurors’ common sense, asking them to question whether the government’s interpretation of Bankman-Fried’s actions made sense. He highlighted instances where the government’s story of a willful conspiracy fell flat and suggested that Bankman-Fried made reasonable business decisions. Cohen also emphasized that if the jury found that Bankman-Fried acted in good faith, he must be acquitted.
## Closing Arguments
Cohen concluded his closing arguments by stating that Bankman-Fried had always been willing to do whatever it took to save the company. He questioned whether a criminal mastermind would appear on national TV, suggest closing down Alameda, or voluntarily testify in Congress. Cohen argued that Bankman-Fried’s mistakes or bad decisions did not equate to a lack of good faith.
## Hot Take: Jury Deliberation Will Determine Fate
The fate of Sam Bankman-Fried now rests in the hands of the jury. The prosecution presented a strong case, accusing him of misappropriating customers’ funds and lying about it. However, the defense argued that Bankman-Fried acted in good faith and made reasonable business decisions. Ultimately, it will be up to the jury to decide whether they believe the evidence presented by both sides and determine whether Bankman-Fried is guilty or innocent. The verdict will have significant implications for the future of FTX and the reputation of its former CEO.
By
By
By
By