U.S. Prosecutors Argue Legal Framework is Sufficient to Charge Sam Bankman-Fried for Fraud
According to U.S. prosecutors, the existing legal framework is adequate to charge Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of a failed crypto exchange, for fraud-related violations. The Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissed Bankman-Fried’s claims that the absence of relevant laws or guidance impacts whether the alleged use of customer deposits constitutes misappropriation. The prosecutors argued that there are already prohibitions on misappropriating customer assets, which Bankman-Fried has been charged with violating.
The DOJ emphasized that the presence or absence of regulation is not relevant to determining if money was entrusted to Bankman-Fried’s care by his victims. They stated that evidence or arguments about the absence of regulation may confuse the jury into thinking that a regulation is necessary for misappropriation to occur.
The DOJ also opposed Bankman-Fried’s request for reconsideration regarding the preclusion of evidence related to asset recovery in the FTX bankruptcy proceeding. Additionally, they stated that they do not object to Bankman-Fried presenting admissible evidence about his charitable efforts, as long as it serves a proper purpose and not for propensity or character purposes.
First Day of Trial
The trial for Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of a failed crypto exchange, commenced with jury selection. It was unclear whether potential jurors fully understood the magnitude of the case before them. They were instructed not to research or discuss the details independently. The final 12 jurors and six alternates will be selected from this pool.
Hot Take: U.S. Prosecutors Assert Existing Laws Are Sufficient for Charging Crypto Founder
In a recent filing, U.S. prosecutors reiterated their stance that Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of a failed crypto exchange, can be charged for fraud-related violations using the existing legal framework. They dismissed Bankman-Fried’s arguments about the absence of relevant laws or guidance affecting the misappropriation of customer deposits. The prosecutors emphasized that prohibitions on misappropriating customer assets already exist and that evidence or arguments about the absence of regulation could confuse the jury. Additionally, they opposed Bankman-Fried’s request for reconsideration on evidence preclusion and clarified their position on his presentation of charitable efforts. The trial has commenced with jury selection, and potential jurors were instructed to avoid independent research or discussion of the case.
By
By
By
By