Table of Contents
Crypto King Acted on Legal Advice
Drama Unfolds: ‘Crypto King’ Defends $100M Fraud Case with Legal Backing! Get the Inside Scoop Now! Don’t Miss Out! 🔍 #Crypto #FTX
The jury left in the former crypto boss’ hearing, and he started giving evidence to the judge about it.
Thus, the former entrepreneur testifies before Judge Lews Kaplan in order to reveal what pieces of his testimony may be delivered to the jury.
Thirty-one-year-old Sam Bankman-Fried stands charged with deceiving lenders and loan seekers as well as embezzling customer cash, making him the ex-head of bankrupt crypto exchange, FTX.
He argued that he was acting upon the advice rendered by a lawyer and did so honestly.
He then sent the jury out of the courtroom so that he could rule on what parts of Mr Bankman Fried’s testimonial were admissible as evidence.
It was a rehearsal for the lawyers, and Mr Bankman-Fried ahead of him facing the jury.
Prosecutors have questioned many decisions taken by Mr Bankman-Fried including changing some of the group chat settings so that they would automatically be deleted. His legal team had put in place record keeping regimes which he allegedly complied with.
He told them about various arrangements he had proposed to his lawyers, including personal loans that he got from Alameda and its position of “payments process” for FTX.
And the said lawyer, Mark Cohen asked, “Mr. Bankman-Fried, did you take comfort in the legal structure of these loans?” “Absolutely,” replied Mr Bankman-Fried.
He added; “he also believed in his legal team to file for bank account opening applications for his companies”. He asserted, “I thought those were legitimate types”
On prosecution grounds, Mr Bankman-Freed’s defense of acting on a good faith legal advisory opinion would be without merit since, even though the lawyers might not been completely informed.
The judge did not decide immediately regarding Mr. Bankman-Fried’s testimony and indicated that was he was skeptical about some of the claims.
At the beginning Mr Bankman-Fried was clear and audacious. However, at the moment they started questioning about lawyers consultation date and their discussion Mr Bankman-Fried wobbled.
At one moment, Judge Kaplan told Mr Bankman-Fried: “Listen to the questions and answer directly.”
Asked if it was his understanding of Alameda was permitted to spend FTX customer funds, Mr Bankman Fried responded: “Well, I’m not saying it like that, but in a way, yes.”
Over one minute lapsed since he indicated that such a stipulation existed in a policy between the two firms, after he was queried by Ms Sassoon. And at the end, he indicated a line, which said that the funds may be held in addition, or may be transferred.
On Friday, judge Lewis kaplan shall determine his position as far as bankman-fried is concerned; on what he can put before a jury.
Assessing the dangers
Dozens of curious people came to the court to witness the appearance of Mr. Bakkman-Fried, including screenwriters, retirees, among other people, hooked by the billionaire’s scandalous climb and downfall.
After a trial period that lasted for 12 days in which close former colleagues gave testimonies, he has appeared at the New York court.
The convict may be sentenced to life imprisonment.
In the United States defendants are not required to give evidence at trial, and in any case it should be emphasised that any testimony would expose a party directly for cross examination by the prosecution.
They also enable those who will eventually decide on the matter and form other prejudices, which may not be positive.
“if he did not convince the jury it is a certain conviction,” Jacob Frenkel, a former federal prosecutor who has been tracking the trial earlier this month.
However, most analysts covering the trial said that they expected Mr Bankman-Fried himself to get on the stand to counter the arguments advanced by the court and claim he was innocent.
According to Carl Tobias, professor of law at the University of Richmond, “the prosecutors have presented a very convincing case”. In view of what has been witnessed, he probably stands a chance.
He was prosecuted by the allegations from his three former close mates as well as coworkers who had already admitted guilty.
The government has linked him to transfers of deposits belonging to customers of FTX to repay lenders in his digital asset trading firm, Alameda Research; purchase properties; invest, and make contributions.
According to the lawyers, they supported the accusations with text messages, spreadsheets and tweets saying he attempted to conceal the transactions between the two companies and their closeness.
These witnesses including his ex-girlfriend and former Alameda chief executive Caroline Ellison seem to emerge from hours of interrogation during the trial pretty much credible enough.
His defence lawyers have argued that the actions taken by Mr Bankman-Fried were “reasonable” because of his companies rapid growth rate.
After his companies’ crash last year, he confessed in a media interview as well as with the BBC that his decisions may have been managerial but never a deliberate case of fraudulence.
One other famous case of the defendant is Elizabeth Holmes, who chose to testify for himself.
Theranos founder accused of fraud and sentenced to over eleven years in jail after four charges against her were proven of 11 total.
However, this also has its advantages. A former private equity executive and fundraiser for former President Donald Trump, Tom Barrack, as well as Lebanese businessman Jean Boustani, each separately pleaded not guilty during their own criminal trials and were found innocent.