Sam Bankman-Fried’s lawyers are asking a US judge to restrict witness comments ahead of his trial in October. The defense argues that a New York Times article unfairly discredited Bankman-Fried while pandering to Caroline Ellison. Bankman-Fried has pleaded not guilty and is living at her parent’s home under strict bail conditions.
Lawyers representing Sam Bankman-Fried confirm that he spoke and shared documents with The New York Times for an article on Caroline Ellison last week, but insist he has “done nothing wrong.” Ellison, former CEO of Alameda Research, was the subject of a detailed article in the Gray Lady last week.
US prosecutors later claimed that Bankman-Fried, who faces criminal charges for his failed tenure as FTX CEO, had shared the diary entries with the press in an attempt to “discredit” Ellison, and asked a judge to prevent him from making statements that could potentially interfere with a fair trial.
Sam Bankman-Fried’s lawyers have asked the judge in his criminal case to restrict the comments witnesses can make before the disgraced former CEO’s trial in October. The request comes after the court issued a gag order against SBF for speaking to a reporter about former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison.
The July 22 message from Cohen & Gressler LLP denies that Bankman-Fried tried to discredit Ellison and contaminate the jury, arguing instead that the FTX founder was exercising his right of reply to an article that had been months in the making.
The NYT revealed that Ellisom had been “quite unhappy and overwhelmed” with her role at the trading firm, which was the sister company to the doomed FTX exchange. Her diary entries admitted that she did not feel “right” for the position and had difficulties in areas such as “leadership” and “determination”.
Bankman-Fried’s Lawyers Accuse Courts of Double Standards
The courts allege that Bankman-Fried’s comments compromised the group of jurors who will participate in his criminal trial in October. In response, SBF’s lawyers argue that the New York Times article unfairly discredited Bankman-Fried while pandering to Ellison. They claim that the courts unfairly targeted their client without censoring the negative comments of other witnesses:
“Indeed, up to this point, the government has shown little concern for pretrial publicity regarding its witnesses, contradicting its now expressed concern for witnesses who might be deterred by the specter of publicity.”
Consequently, they want the court to issue a gag order on other witnesses before SBF’s October trial.
The defense also argued that the documents SBF showed the reporter were obtained before the discovery. As a result, they did not violate the conditions of their bail.
They claim that Bankman-Fried complied with all the rules for visitors, including recording their names in a visitor log and screening for electronic recording devices.
SBF Planned to Run a Secret Lab on a Remote Island
Bankman-Fried was the CEO of FTX before it collapsed in November. US prosecutors initially charged SBF with eight counts of fraud related to money laundering and misappropriation of client funds. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
However, Ellison and several other former colleagues have pleaded guilty and will testify against Bankman-Fried when her case goes to trial later this year.
The MIT alumnus has lived at his parents’ home in Palo Alto since he was released on bond. The bail was recognized as 250 million dollars. The conditions of his bond include restricted access to the Internet and a virtual private network.
Recent bizarre revelations surrounding his criminal trial include the purchase of a small island to house a laboratory for genetic experiments.
By Audy Castaneda
