Day 17 of the trial of Sam Bankman-Fried: Final arguments between the prosecution and defense attorneys

The trial of former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried is gradually coming to an end with the final argument between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Painting of Sam Bankman-Fried at his own trial. Photo: Jane Rosenberg/Reuters

After ending the witness questioning that lasted 3 weeks, with the last witness being Sam Bankman-Fried, the trial of the former FTX CEO is entering the final statements and arguments between the prosecutors. member of the US Department of Justice and defense attorney.

Statement of the prosecutor

Opening the 17th day of trial, the prosecutor of the US Department of Justice summarized the evidence and testimony of witnesses compiled in recent days, thereby convincing the jury that 7 counts of fraud were committed. and the fraud placed on Sam Bankman-Fried is correct.

The prosecutor asserted that Sam Bankman-Fried, when testifying, "created a new story and lied to the court". The consequence of "the defendant's pyramid built on lies and false promises" was that "billions of dollars of FTX customers' assets were lost."

The prosecutor repeatedly reminded the court of three questions that the jury should remember when looking back at the case, which are "where did the money go?", "what happened?" and “who is responsible for it?”. After XEM all the evidence and listening to witness testimonies, the prosecution confidently asserted that Sam Bankman-Fried was the person behind everything, responsible for the collapse of the FTX exchange. Sam Bankman-Fried is the head of both FTX and Alameda Research, is the direct decision maker and has access to inside information.

The prosecutor also pointed out Sam Bankman-Fried's "duplicity" when testifying in court. The former FTX CEO often used the phrase "I don't remember, I don't know" when questioned by the prosecutor, but could answer in detail and clearly when asked by his defense lawyer.

“He came up with a different story,” the prosecutor said. To believe it, we must discard all the evidence brought to court."

The prosecutor also recounted to the jury six times that Sam Bankman-Fried abused his power to help Alameda Research gain trading privileges on FTX and then withdrew customer funds, each time causing both companies to sink deeper and deeper. . That money is then used to invest and spend with a value of up to billions of dollars.

Other important facts for the former FTX CEO's criminal actions highlighted in court were the fact that Sam Bankman-Fried directed the withdrawal of FTX customer funds to repay Alameda's debt when the cryptocurrency market plummeted in June. 2022, as well as creating financial statements that falsify data to hide investment fund losses.

Finally, in the days leading up to FTX's collapse, Sam Bankman-Fried kept reassuring users that everything was fine , despite knowing full well that his platform no longer had enough liquidation to meet their withdrawal requests. client.

Defense attorney's statement

Sam Bankman-Fried's defense attorney opened his client's defense by implying that the plaintiff was intentionally portraying the former FTX CEO as a "Hollywood movie villain", trying to coordinate the trial according to the law. unfavorable direction for this person.

The lawyer affirmed that the accusation that FTX has engaged in fraudulent and deceitful behavior from the first days is incorrect. The lawyer admitted that the floor should have had more effective risk management mechanisms, but assured that all of Sam Bankman-Fried's actions and decisions were with "good intentions" and wanted to refute all of them. the crime was placed on him. The lawyer said that even the evidence that the prosecution considered to constitute the clearest criminal act, such as the fact that FTX gave Alameda a loan limit of 65 billion USD and had a negative account, were all done for business purposes. business and serving customers, not harming them.

The defense attorney then pointed out inconsistencies in the testimony of key witnesses called by the prosecution - including former Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison, former FTX CTO Gary Wang and former Chief Technical Officer Nishad Singh . According to the lawyer, all of these people have confessed to the US government and have reason to give unfavorable testimony to Sam Bankman-Fried in the hope of asking for leniency.

Another argument raised is that if Sam Bankman-Fried was the mastermind of the fraud and deceit at Alameda, then why in the evidence presented by the prosecutor himself was the former FTX CEO the first person to proposed for the fund to stop operating, or why Sam continuously appeared in the media, agreed to testify before the US Congress, or even did not run away with the money but still paid the debt to Alameda creditors.

The defense lawyer ended the defense by saying that the mistakes Sam Bankman-Fried committed could be XEM unforeseen risks in the business process.

“Sam tried his best to simultaneously run two businesses worth tens of billions of dollars in a completely new field. Some decisions work out well, while others don't.”

The defense asked the jury to find that Sam Bankman-Fried acted with “good intentions” while running FTX and Alameda, and therefore could not be charged with fraud and racketeering. FTX's downfall came from miscommunication, errors and delays, rather than fraud and fraud.

According to reporters present at the trial, Sam Bankman-Fried was "almost in tears" while his defense attorney made his final statements.

After hearing arguments from the prosecutor and defense attorney, the 12-member jury is expected to have a closed discussion on November 2 to decide which side is right and which side is wrong, and then make a verdict on the defendant. status placed on Sam Bankman-Fried.

Coin68 compiled

Join the discussion about the hottest issues of the DeFi market in the Fomo Sapiens chat group with Coin68 admins!!!