Sam Bankman-Fried Makes Legal Move for Anticipated Not Guilty Verdict
In the midst of his high-profile fraud trial, Sam Bankman-Fried is making strategic legal moves aimed at securing a not-guilty verdict. His defense team, led by Mark S. Cohen, has submitted a letter to the judge, clearly indicating their expectation of a not-guilty verdict.
What the Letter Says
The letter outlines the proposed jury instructions along with supporting authorities, focusing primarily on the interpretation of the Terms of Service. The defense team has expressed their understanding of the court’s perspective, acknowledging that the legal meaning of the Terms of Service falls under the court’s jurisdiction.
They have presented this document for the court’s consideration, aiming to “aid in the judicial process.” By doing so, they are laying the groundwork for their anticipated not-guilty verdict, wanting to align the jury’s perception with their legal argument.
Also Read: Sam Bankman-Fried Trial Update: Conflicting Claims on Alameda’s Unique Leverage within FTX
Uncertainty and a Shifty Stance
During the trial, Bankman-Fried has maintained an unclear position. When questioned about important matters, he often responded with uncertainty and claimed a lack of memory. U.S. Assistant Attorney Danielle Sassoon conducted a thorough cross-examination, aiming to find potential inconsistencies in his statements regarding financial connections between his companies. Despite Sassoon’s persistent questioning and Bankman-Fried’s visible frustration, he continued to give evasive responses, avoiding definitive admissions.
As Sassoon kept pressing, scrutinizing Bankman-Fried’s previous public statements and comparing them to his role as FTX’s CEO, the courtroom atmosphere became tense. Judge Kaplan stepped in, urging Bankman-Fried to provide clear and direct answers. The impact of the letter submitted by SBF’s lawyers on the trial’s outcome remains uncertain.
The Community Speaks Out
Critics within the crypto community argue that Bankman-Fried’s defense is orchestrating a calculated effort to shape the jury’s interpretation of the Terms of Service, raising concerns about the fairness and transparency of the legal proceedings.
