The authorities offered its rebuttal against former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried on Nov. 2 in response to statements made by his protection through the closing arguments a day earlier.
A jury of 12 will obtain ultimate directions within the Southern District Court of Manhattan on Nov. 2. The jury will obtain pizza and transportation if their verdict comes after courtroom hours, in accordance to District Court Lewis Kaplan.
As the trial of @SBF_FTX attracts close to its conclusion, the prosecution and protection lay down their ultimate arguments. https://t.co/csFJ5AAZxm
— Cointelegraph (@Cointelegraph) November 1, 2023
Speaking on the courtroom, U.S. Assistant Attorney Danielle Sassoon claimed prosecutors “met the burden” of proving that Bankman-Fried is responsible of seven counts of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.
According to Sassoon, the previous FTX CEO gave prospects, buyers and the media the misunderstanding that belongings held at FTX had been protected and that Alameda Research had no involvement with the funds.
Sassoon pointed to Bankman-Fried’s tweets and public statements made within the months and weeks earlier than FTX’s collapse, together with claims that prospects’ funds had been held in segregated accounts when, in actuality, they had been being utilized by Alameda Research.
Sassoon additionally refuted the protection’s argument that Bankman-Fried made public appearances within the media after FTX’s collapse, claiming his interviews and tweets used to make him look dependable at a time his alternate wasn’t in a position to pay again its prospects.
“He didn’t want to be a criminal on the run,” she famous, including that Bankman-Fried had the ambition to be president of the United States. “He lied to get prospects’ belief.”
The prosecution went over spreadsheets to refute claims that Bankman-Fried didn’t find out about Alameda’s multibillion-dollar line of credit score and reimbursement of lenders with buyer funds, including that Bankman-Fried thought buyer funds had been his “piggy bank.”
According to Sassoon, the protection’s assertion that the federal government painted Bankman-Fried as a monster throughout closing arguments the day earlier than was “desperate.”
“They were acting at the defendant’s direction,” Sassoon stated about Caroline Ellison, Gary Wang and Nishad Singh.
Bankman-Fried’s former interior circle cooperated with the federal government and testified in the case. During closing arguments, protection attorneys tried to disqualify their testimony, claiming it was made beneath a strict cooperation settlement with federal prosecutors.
The protection, in accordance to Sassoon, needed the jurors to consider that Bankman-Fried was clueless about what was occurring with Alameda and FTX. “It’s absurd,” stated the U.S. lawyer, claiming the protection’s claims contradicted the proof.
Related: Sam Bankman-Fried ‘doubled down’ by buying Binance’s stake in FTX — US prosecutors
The FTX technique, Sassoon stated, was to not rent a threat officer to guarantee no person came upon about deleted messages and embezzlement.
“He knew what he was doing was wrong — that’s why he never hired a risk officer,” she informed the jury.