Closing Argument: Sam Bankman-Fried’s Lawyer Highlights Errors, Not Offenses

Closing Argument: Sam Bankman-Fried's Lawyer Highlights Errors, Not Offenses


Bankman-Fried’s Lawyer: ‘Mistakes Are Not a Crime’

In his closing argument, Mark Cohen, the lawyer representing Sam Bankman-Fried, emphasized that making mistakes is not the same as committing a crime. Cohen, who is known for defending Ghislaine Maxwell, stated that the burden of proof lies with the government, and they had failed to demonstrate criminal intent on Bankman-Fried’s part. The lawyer criticized the government for attempting to portray Bankman-Fried as a monster without sufficient evidence.

Cohen acknowledged that there were flaws in how Bankman-Fried and his team operated FTX but argued that it was an innovative and legitimate business. He asserted that the collapse of FTX was due to a liquidity crisis rather than a Ponzi scheme.

Cohen highlighted the unfair treatment of Bankman-Fried by the government during the trial, noting that they criticized him regardless of whether he provided lengthy or concise answers. He questioned why Bankman-Fried would voluntarily speak to Congress if he were truly a criminal mastermind.

The defense lawyer attacked the credibility of prosecution witnesses who had taken plea deals, suggesting that they shifted blame onto Bankman-Fried in order to receive sentencing reductions. Cohen argued that the code access and transfers between FTX and Alameda were not secret crimes but rather actions taken by a young and innovative company.

Cohen concluded by stating that the case was a matter of differing business judgments rather than criminal behavior. He maintained that Bankman-Fried acted in good faith and implored the jury to find him not guilty.

Hot Take: Mistakes vs. Crimes

Read Disclaimer
This page is simply meant to provide information. It does not constitute a direct offer to purchase or sell, a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a suggestion or endorsement of any goods, services, or businesses. Lolacoin.org does not offer accounting, tax, or legal advice. When using or relying on any of the products, services, or content described in this article, neither the firm nor the author is liable, directly or indirectly, for any harm or loss that may result. Read more at Important Disclaimers and at Risk Disclaimers.

In his closing argument, Sam Bankman-Fried’s lawyer, Mark Cohen, emphasized an important distinction between mistakes and crimes. He pointed out that while Bankman-Fried may have made errors in judgment, it does not automatically make him a criminal. Cohen criticized the government’s portrayal of Bankman-Fried as a monster without sufficient evidence of criminal intent. He argued that Bankman-Fried was an innovative entrepreneur who built a legitimate business, and the collapse of FTX was due to a liquidity crisis rather than a Ponzi scheme. Cohen also questioned the credibility of prosecution witnesses who had taken plea deals, suggesting that they shifted blame onto Bankman-Fried to receive sentencing reductions. Overall, Cohen portrayed the case as a difference in business judgment rather than criminal behavior and urged the jury to find Bankman-Fried not guilty.

Author – Contributor at | Website

Benito Cormi, the brilliant crypto analyst who has made waves in the world of cryptocurrency. With his razor-sharp analytical skills and deep understanding of the digital asset landscape, Benito has become a trusted figure in the industry and remains at the forefront, tirelessly researching and analyzing market trends to help individuals and businesses make informed decisions in this dynamic landscape.