Bankman-Fried’s Defense Challenges Trust Relationship Claim
Lawyers representing Sam Bankman-Fried are contesting the prosecution’s assertion that a trust or fiduciary relationship existed between FTX, the crypto exchange he co-founded, and its customers. In an addendum to their previous filings, Bankman-Fried’s attorneys argue that according to English law, which governs FTX’s terms of service, no trust relationship was established. They point out that the terms of service do not mention trust or fiduciary duties. The defense aims to counter the government’s fraud allegations that Bankman-Fried misappropriated customer deposits for his trading firm. They argue that subjective intentions are irrelevant and that the existence of a trust should be determined objectively based on the contractual terms.
The Defense’s Position on Trust Relationships
Bankman-Fried’s legal team states that under English law, a formal trust, known as an express trust, is only created when assets are placed under one party’s control for the benefit of another or a specific purpose. They emphasize that subjective expectations or beliefs about a trust do not establish its existence. The defense also highlights that representations made outside the contract cannot retroactively establish a trust relationship. By challenging the claim of a trust relationship, Bankman-Fried’s attorneys aim to undermine the prosecution’s case against their client.
Jury Instructions and Bankman-Fried’s Testimony
The defense’s arguments regarding the absence of a trust relationship come as Bankman-Fried recently testified in court and had difficulty recalling specific statements and decisions. Facing potential imprisonment for over 100 years, Bankman-Fried has pleaded not guilty to all charges brought against him. The jury instructions will play a crucial role in shaping the outcome of the trial.
Hot Take: Examining the Trust Issue in Bankman-Fried’s Case
The defense’s focus on disputing the existence of a trust or fiduciary relationship is a strategic move to weaken the prosecution’s fraud case against Sam Bankman-Fried. By emphasizing that English law, which governs FTX’s terms of service, does not recognize such relationships based on subjective intentions, the defense aims to create doubt among the jury. Bankman-Fried’s recent testimony, coupled with his attorneys’ arguments, sets the stage for a critical phase in the trial. The outcome will determine the potential consequences he may face and have broader implications for how crypto exchanges are legally perceived.
By
By
By
By
By