Advertisement
“Not Sure” – Bankman-Fried Takes the Stand While Jury is Dismissed
- SBF finally takes the stand; but Judge Kaplan dismisses the jury. SBF will testify once again tomorrow, this time with a live audience.
- It’s believed the jury was dismissed so the legal teams and judge could work around questions that would likely lead to objections and hold-ups. Additionally, sensitive documents may have been discussed.
- SBF’s defence revolved around him not knowing he wasn’t supposed to use client funds.
The most-anticipated moment of the Sam Bankman-Fried trial has finally come to pass, with SBF taking the stand and speaking for the first time since the lawsuit began. In an interesting twist, presiding judge Lewis Kaplan dismissed the jurors so he could converse directly with Bankman-Fried.
According to Kaplan: “There are areas of testimony that the government contends the jury should not hear”.
There are areas of testimony that the government contends the jury should not hear.
Judge Kaplan What’s Behind the Jury’s Dismissal?
The rationale behind the jury’s dismissal isn’t certain yet, but there are a few prevailing theories. Many in the media believe Judge Kaplan wished to hear SBF’s statements privately, as much of his testimony would likely lead to objections from the opposition lawyers. By vetting the process personally, the judge can decide which questions he wishes to accept from SBF’s lawyers ahead of time, avoiding the lengthy merry-go-round of objections and interruptions. On top of this, it’s possible that sensitive documents were to be discussed during this phase of the testimony.
Of course, this may not stop the jury from asking SBF those very same questions when he takes the stand in front of them, making their dismissal a little surprising. Some other experts have suggested the Judge’s decision is due to government prosecutors moving to block evidence and witnesses presented by SBF’s lawyers, which may be the case again here.
Missing Documents and FTX Lawyers: SBF’s Defence Strategy Revealed
As many speculated, SBF’s defence strategy is centred around the ex-CEO of FTX acting in good faith and that he did not intentionally defraud or misuse his customers’ money. However, what was a little more unusual was the focus on FTX’s lawyers preceding the crypto exchange’s monumental collapse. SBF’s testimony claimed that his lawyers at the time were involved with creating a system that allowed money to seamlessly flow from FTX to Alameda Research.
Additionally, SBF argued that much of his defence team’s inability to produce certain documents stemmed from his lawyer’s advice. The so-called “document retention policy”, crafted by FTX Chief Regulatory Officer Dan Friedberg, allegedly informed SBF that the crypto exchange should not retain certain information. Ironically, this very document is also missing.
These claims ultimately led to SBF’s most interesting line of defence – that he was simply unaware he couldn’t borrow his client’s funds.
All up, not a huge amount was gleaned from SBF’s two hours as a witness in his own trial. Whether due to advice from his lawyers, or simply as a personal decision, Bankman-Fried was quite vague with his answers, often leading his statements with “not sure,” or going off on tangents.
Eventually, Judge Kaplan had enough of SBF’s avoidance of certain questions:
“The witness has, what I’ll simply call, an interesting way of answering questions”.
Author
Ben Knight
Ben Knight is a writer and editor from Melbourne with a passion for all things music and finance. He enjoys turning complex topics – especially the technical details of cryptocurrency – into digestible bites that anybody can understand. He acquired his Master’s in Writing, Editing and Publishing from RMIT in 2019 and has run his own creative writing business ever since.
