Sam Bankman-Fried’s Lawyers Argue Against 50-Year Sentence
In a letter submitted to Judge Lewis Kaplan, Sam Bankman-Fried’s lawyers criticized the prosecution’s recommendation of a 40 to 50-year sentence for their client. They argued that such a lengthy sentence would be unjust and akin to a death-in-prison punishment. The defense team disputed the prosecution’s claim that FTX customers had suffered losses, stating that it had already been determined that they would receive the money owed to them by the bankrupt crypto exchange. They also highlighted Bankman-Fried’s good faith actions and efforts to ensure smooth withdrawals before filing for bankruptcy.
The defense further refuted the prosecution’s argument of recidivism, asserting that there was no basis for such a belief. They emphasized that individuals with no criminal history, like Bankman-Fried, are the least likely to re-offend. Additionally, they noted that offenders with a college education are less likely to engage in repeat offenses. The defense team also disputed the prosecution’s comparison of Bankman-Fried to other high-profile fraud cases, stating that their client’s fraudulent practices did not span as long as those cases.
Potential Risk of Death in Prison
Bankman-Fried’s lawyers raised concerns about their client’s health condition and vulnerabilities, stating that he could potentially die in prison due to these factors. They pointed out that they have not identified any federal defendant convicted of a non-violent offense who served 40 to 50 years in prison and was eventually released. They cited research suggesting that inmates experience a decline in life expectancy for each year of imprisonment, arguing that this approach does not align with achieving deterrence and may unnecessarily ostracize the defendant.
The defense team argued against “crushing” Bankman-Fried with such a severe sentence, noting that he has already lost everything. In their sentencing submission, they proposed a sentence of five to six years instead. They urged the government to consider this limit if they genuinely believed in allowing the defendant to eventually regain his freedom.
By
By
By
By