The criminal trial of disgraced FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried concluded its third week on Thursday, with prosecutors saying they will wrap up the case next week. Bankman-Fried’s defense attorneys expect it will take just a week to testify, which means jury deliberations are just around the corner.
On Thursday afternoon, prosecutors submitted a letter to Judge Lewis Kaplan, who is overseeing the case, offering recommended instructions to the 12 people who will decide whether Bankman-Fried committed fraud. Among their demands: Make sure the jury understands that effective altruism is not an excuse.
Both sides have argued back and forth throughout the trial over the issue of what types of arguments witnesses should be allowed to testify about what types of arguments defense attorneys should be able to make, but the latest filing may be the most important debate yet.
The trial has so far featured numerous witnesses, including three members of Bankmanfried’s inner circle, who have testified that the exchange illegally obtained customer funds and used them for its own purposes, including luxury real estate, startups vote and political donations.
The defense sought to argue that the misappropriation of funds did not constitute a crime because he would eventually repay the funds in different ways, whether by growing FTX’s business or making successful investments, prosecutors said in the letter. They argued that the jury should have been informed that such an argument did not exclude Bankman-Fried from committing any fraud.
Another theme throughout the trial was Bankman-Fried’s devotion to effective altruism, a philanthropic movement that seeks to maximize an individual’s utility through actions such as donations or career trajectories. Bankman-Fried surrounded himself with other followers of this ethos, including engineering executive Nishad Singh and Caroline Ellison, his former girlfriend and CEO of trading firm Alameda Research.
In another stipulation in the filing, prosecutors wrote that Bankman-Fried sought to argue that his decision was “motivated by a desire to do good in the world” and was motivated by his support for effective altruism. promote.
“Any such argument cannot justify fraud,” they write. They describe effective altruism as “a particular philosophy about the ethics of lying and stealing.”They say this is related to mens reaor with the intent to commit improper conduct, for the purpose of wire fraud.
The trial is being adjourned because of Kaplan’s presence, and prosecutors expect to finish calling witnesses next Thursday.
Svlook
