Sam Bankman-Fried Blames FTX Attorneys For Sham Loans
Sam Bankman-Fried’s defense team is seeking to elicit evidence of lawyers’ involvement in the structuring of loans by Alameda Research. However, Judge Kaplan had previously prevented the defense from presenting this evidence. The defense argues that evidence of counsel’s involvement is relevant to Bankman-Fried’s good faith and lack of criminal intent.
Evidence of Actual Loans
Prosecutors questioned Gary Wang about loans worth $200-$300 million from Alameda Research, which were used to fund venture investments by FTX and purchase a house. Wang believes these were legitimate loans with formal promissory notes and interest payment obligations.
Negating Money Laundering Allegations
The defense argues that evidence of lawyers’ involvement in the loans provides proof that Bankman-Fried did not direct sham loans to hide the source of funds. This undermines the prosecutors’ money laundering allegations. If approved by Judge Kaplan, this evidence could significantly impact the case.
Undermining Caroline Ellison’s Testimony
The defense also seeks to cross-examine Caroline Ellison, CEO of Alameda Research, to challenge her statements and undermine her credibility. They intend to delve into both Alameda’s business practices and Ellison’s personal relationship with Bankman-Fried.
Hot Take: Seeking to Expose Involvement of Attorneys in Loan Structuring
Sam Bankman-Fried’s defense team is making a strategic move by seeking to elicit evidence of attorneys’ involvement in the structuring of loans issued by Alameda Research. This evidence could support Bankman-Fried’s claim of good faith and lack of criminal intent. By challenging the prosecutors’ money laundering allegations and undermining the credibility of key witnesses, the defense aims to weaken the case against Bankman-Fried. If successful, this could have significant implications for the outcome of the trial.
By
By
By
By
By