For three weeks, Sam Bankman-Fried sat silently within the third row of a Manhattan federal courthouse as his former closest colleagues and ex-girlfriend tore him aside.
All three members of his internal circleCaroline Ellison, Gary Wang, and Nishad Singhtestified that the previous FTX CEO directed them to commit fraud, mislead traders, and create particular exceptions to permit his buying and selling agency Alameda Analysis to borrow billions of {dollars} from FTX prospects. They stated that he knowingly deceived the general public about the way in which his enterprise labored. Bankman-Fried has been charged with eight counts, together with wire fraud and conspiracy to commit cash laundering.
All through the trios testimonies, it was but unclear as as to whether Bankman-Fried would reply to their allegations by taking the stand himself. A prison defendants option to testify comes with excessive threat, authorized consultants say: The defendant opens themselves as much as harsh cross-examination, during which they have to dodge each admission of wrongdoing and perjury.
However Bankman-Fried determined that the flexibility to inform his story himself to the jury was definitely worth the threat. So on Thursday, Oct. 26, he was sworn in for the primary time, in entrance of a giant crowd of crypto fanatics and curious onlookers that spilled into a number of overflow rooms within the courthouse.
Extra From TIME
Bankman-Frieds remarks on Thursday afternoon, nevertheless, weren’t a part of the trial proof heard by the jury to find out his guilt or innocence. Moderately, they had been a part of a listening to during which Bankman-Frieds lead protection lawyer Mark Cohen tried to steer Decide Lewis Kaplan that they need to be capable of admit sure proof once they start presenting their case on Friday. The duty for Bankman-Fried, his attorneys, and the prosecution was to not enchantment to the jurorswho had been despatched house for the daybut to steer Decide Kaplan himself.
On this manner, the listening to served as a form of dry run for Bankman-Frieds precise testimony. It supplied a preview of his makes an attempt to deflect blame for the collapse of FTX, and the prosecutors makes an attempt to induce errors from him. After three hours, the listening to didn’t seem to go significantly effectively for Bankman-Fried: Decide Kaplan stated on the finish of it that he was fairly doubtful about his attorneys arguments, and Bankman-Frieds mom Barbara Fried, who was within the crowd, at one level appeared to place her head in her palms.
Learn extra: How Sam Bankman-Frieds Protection May Play Out
Cohens central purpose on Thursday was to current the case that Bankman-Fried had acquired poor authorized recommendation from his former FTX attorneys. Cohen argued that whereas Bankman-Fried had taken consolation from the counsel of attorneys like Dan Friedberg, that they had induced him into making mistaken selections. As an illustration, Bankman-Fried contended that Friedberg and different attorneys handed him paperwork to signincluding one which allegedly misled a financial institution concerning the function of opening a financial institution accountwhich Bankman-Fried solely skimmed, trusting that they had been correct.
There have been lots of issues that occurred that I used to be both not knowledgeable of, or after the actual fact, type of summarily knowledgeable of, he stated at one level, including later: I want I had had extra conversations; that I personally had been extra knowledgeable.
As soon as Cohen was completed, prosecutor Danielle Sassoon took her flip, and subjected Bankman-Fried to a few hours of rapidfire, hyper-specific questions on his conversations with Friedberg: when and the place they occurred and what was stated in them. The aggressive strategy appeared to stymie Bankman-Fried at sure factors: He stuttered ceaselessly, used a labyrinth of jargon and repeated the phrase I dont recall 25 occasions.
Bankman-Frieds circuitous strategy to answering Sassoons questions appeared to harass Decide Kaplan. Hearken to the query and reply the query immediately, he admonished Bankman-Fried at one level. At one other juncture, he stated to Cohen: A part of the issue is that the witness has, what I am going to merely name, an attention-grabbing manner of responding to questions.
The tensest second of the listening to got here when Sassoon requested Bankman-Fried a forceful query about embezzling buyer belongings. Whereas the query was thrown out by Decide Kaplan, Bankman-Fried responded anyway, refuting her query with fun.
His lawyer lower in and scolded him in a playful tone: You did not have to reply if it has been sustained. Have not you been sitting right here for 4 weeks?
I felt the necessity to reply that one, Bankman-Fried replied.
Learn extra: The three Key Battle Traces in Sam Bankman-Frieds Trial
On the finish of the listening to, Decide Kaplan stated he would determine on Friday whether or not the proof about Bankman-Frieds former attorneys can be allowed. However he stated he was doubtful about Cohens place, and even drew an analogy to somebody robbing a financial institution, hiring a lawyer to assist him launder the funds, after which pinning the crime on the lawyer. How is that completely different from what you are attempting to do in precept? he requested, including: I’m not saying something about your consumer’s guilt or innocence.
If Decide Kaplan guidelines towards Bankman-Fried on this listening to, it could cut back the defenses out there approaches even additional: In a pretrial ruling, Decide Kaplan sharply restricted the variety of skilled witnesses the protection may name. No matter what occurs, Bankman-Fried will return to the standwith the jurors presenton Friday.
