Sign In with Google
Sign In with Facebook
The US Attorney’s Office Maintains No Bail for Former FTX CEO
The United States Attorney’s Office maintains its stand in denying bail to ex-FTX CEO Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried. They stipulate the risk of witness tampering, arguing that no release conditions could guarantee the safety of the witnesses. Bankman-Fried's appeal against his bail revocation was dismissed, as prosecutors deemed it baseless.
SBF Allegedly Breached Court Orders Twice
The prosecutors defend their rationale by stating that SBF had on two separate occasions broken or attempted to break court orders by tampering with witnesses. Bankman-Fried's continued sidestepping of the pre-trial release terms signify that he would probably not adhere to release conditions.
Instances of Attempted Witness Interference
The first such instance was exposed in January this year when SBF allegedly reached out to FTX.US's then General Counsel, a potential trial witness represented by a legal practitioner. A second incident occurred in 2023, in July when private journal entries of Caroline Ellison, ex-CEO of Alameda and SBF’s associate, were aired in a New York Times report. SBF reportedly leaked the journal himself, a fact later confirmed by his legal representatives.
Bail Plea Revoked
On July 26 in a court hearing, the prosecution made appeals for SBF’s bail plea to be rescinded, based on his breach of bail terms and attempts to manipulate witnesses. Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan of the Southern District of New York District Court overruled SBF’s bail on Aug. 11 following his alleged attempts to sway or intimidate witnesses. SBF had been out on bail under a $250 million bond since December of 2022.
Continued Legal Disputes Over The Bail Revocation
Bankman-Fried's counsel opposed the cancellation of the bail order on Aug. 28, arguing that under the First Amendment rights, SBF was within his right to speak to the press about Ellison. Nonetheless, the prosecution insisted that Judge Kaplan took SBF's First Amendment rights into account when rendering his ruling stating that intimidating or influencing a witness is criminal, and this unlawful act has no connection to the First Amendment.
Prosecutors' Key Points Against SBF's Appeal
In countering the appeal from SBF’s legal team, the prosecutors presented two critical arguments: Firstly, they mentioned that the defendants didn’t raise any objections or dispute the ruling regarding SBF’s attempt to tamper with a potential FTX.US counsel witness, which the judge saw as evident witness tampering maneuvers.
