New Sam Bankman-Fried trial would be huge waste of court’s time, judge says - Ars Technica
Overview
New Sam Bankman-Fried trial would be huge waste of court’s time, judge saysvar abtest_2152239 = new ABTest(2152239, 'click');
FTX fraudster came out as Republican, then tried to claim Biden’s DOJ targeted him.
Details
In an order denying Sam Bankman-Fried’s request for a new trial, a judge accused the disgraced FTX founder of wasting precious court resources on wild conspiracies. To the judge, the motion seemed like a last-ditch attempt to give himself a MAGA makeover that the Trump administration absolutely wasn’t buying.
Bankman-Fried was sentenced to 25 years in prison in 2024 for “masterminding one of the largest financial frauds in American history,” US District Judge Lewis Kaplan wrote in his order. He was convicted on all charges, including wire fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, commodities fraud, and money laundering.
There is already an appeal pending in another court, the judge noted. But Bankman-Fried filed a separate motion for a new trial, claiming that there were “newly discovered” witnesses and evidence that might have helped his defense, if Joe Biden’s Department of Justice hadn’t intimidated them into refusing to testify or, in one case, lying on the stand. He also asked for a new judge, wanting Kaplan to recuse himself.
However, Kaplan pointed out that “none of the witnesses” were “newly discovered.” And more concerningly, Bankman-Fried offered no evidence that the witnesses could prove the “wildly conspiratorial” theory the FTX founder raised, claiming that their absence at the trial was a “product of government threats and retaliation,” the judge wrote.
Bankman-Fried’s theory is “entirely contradicted by the record,” Kaplan said. He emphasized that granting Bankman-Fried’s request “would be a large waste of judicial resources as it could require another judge to familiarize himself or herself with an extensive and complicated record.”
Additionally, all three witnesses that Bankman-Fried claimed could give crucial testimony in his defense were known to him throughout the trial, and he never sought to compel their testimony. And the “self-serving social-media posts” of one witness who now claims that he lied when testifying against Bankman-Fried—“Ryan Salame, who pleaded guilty”—must be met with “utmost suspicion,” Kaplan said.
“If one were to take Salame at his current word, he lied under oath when pleading guilty before this Court,” Kaplan wrote. Even if taken seriously, “his out-of-court, unsworn statements could not come anywhere close to clearing the bar to warrant a new trial,” Kaplan said, deeming Salame’s credibility “highly questionable.”
Further, “even if these individuals had testified for Bankman-Fried, his protestations that one or more of them would have supported his claims that FTX was not insolvent and that his victims all were compensated fully in the bankruptcy proceedings are inaccurate or misleading,” Kaplan concluded.
In the order, Kaplan’s frustration seems palpable, as there may have been no need for him to rule on the motion at all after Bankman-Fried requested to withdraw it.
But the judge said the ruling was needed after Bankman-Fried waited to file his withdrawal request until after the DOJ and the court wasted time responding and reviewing filings, the judge said. Troublingly, Bankman-Fried’s request to withdraw his request without prejudice would have allowed him to potentially request a new trial after the appeal ended. Based on the substance of the filing, that risked wasting future court resources, Kaplan determined.
To prevent overburdening the justice system, Kaplan deemed it necessary to deny Bankman-Fried’s motion and request for recusal, rather than allow him to withdraw the filing without prejudice.
Kaplan suggested that the motion was not a sincere effort to correct the record but rather part of a documented “plan” that Bankman-Fried concocted in a Google Doc “after FTX declared bankruptcy but before he was indicted,” hoping “to rescue his reputation.”
This plan, Kaplan wrote, required Bankman-Fried to “come out” as a Republican “against the woke agenda,” by posting on X and going on high-profile news shows or right-leaning podcasts. Seemingly, Bankman-Fried hoped that if he could “get as much support as possible,” he might meet a more lenient DOJ during the appeal or possibly even get a pardon from Donald Trump.
When he drafted the plan, Bankman-Fried wrote that these were “random probably bad ideas,” but since his pre-trial house arrest and later incarceration, Bankman-Fried has “followed his plan to a remarkable degree,” Kaplan wrote.
Ultimately, Kaplan agreed with Trump’s DOJ, which drafted a robust filing in opposition to Bankman-Fried’s request for a new trial. In it, DOJ attorney Sean Buckley criticized the FTX founder for his “incoherent” attempt to claim “political victimhood” in suggesting that his trial under Biden officials was unfair.
-
A Falcon 9 upper stage will strike the Moon in August -
Flesh-eating bacteria devour man's arm and leg in just three days -
Anti-Trump Instagram pic of seashells now enough to indict ex-FBI directors -
Drone pilot makes US rescind no-fly zones around unmarked, moving ICE vehicles -
Open source package with 1 million monthly downloads stole user credentials
Ars Technica has been separating the signal from the noise for over 25 years. With our unique combination of technical savvy and wide-ranging interest in the technological arts and sciences, Ars is the trusted source in a sea of information. After all, you don’t need to know everything, only what’s important.
Key Takeaways
-
New Sam Bankman-Fried trial would be huge waste of court’s time, judge saysvar abtest_2152239 = new ABTest(2152239, 'click');
-
FTX fraudster came out as Republican, then tried to claim Biden’s DOJ targeted him
-
In an order denying Sam Bankman-Fried’s request for a new trial, a judge accused the disgraced FTX founder of wasting precious court resources on wild conspiracies
-
Bankman-Fried was sentenced to 25 years in prison in 2024 for “masterminding one of the largest financial frauds in American history,” US District Judge Lewis Kaplan wrote in his order
-
There is already an appeal pending in another court, the judge noted
