Death Throes or Jedi Turnover? SBF is facing the biggest gamble of his life: defending his innocence

Source: Wall Street Journal

Compiled by BitpushNews irvin Cheung

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, commonly known as SBF, is known for his adventurous taste, and he is now facing perhaps the biggest gamble of his life: defending his innocence.

The one-time crypto asset predator is on trial in New York on suspicion of fraud, money laundering and other crimes, and for nearly three weeks, he has witnessed some of his former colleagues and friends testify as prosecution witnesses. They told jurors that SBF directed and carried out a series of criminal activities with “full knowledge” that led to the collapse of the FTX crypto exchange and the loss of billions of dollars of customer funds.

Federal prosecutors will conclude the case this week, and the SBF’s conviction is almost “certain” based on the available evidence; But in the eyes of people like SBF, perhaps this “Jedi turnover” scene is the moment that inspires him to forge ahead. His defense lawyers believe they can’t rationally let it go, but judging by the course of the trial and the limited options available to the SBF, this may be his last chance.

! [Death Throes or Jedi Turnover?] SBF is facing the biggest gamble of his life: defending his innocence] (https://img-cdn.gateio.im/webp-social/moments-69a80767fe-f00341a06d-dd1a6f-69ad2a.webp)

“For now, unless the SBF does something unexpected, he will definitely be convicted.” So says Evan Barr, a former federal prosecutor and partner at the law firm of Reed Smith.

Barr said the SBF may have hoped that his testimony would win the support of at least a few jurors, allowing the jury to disagree on the verdict.

Under normal circumstances, lawyers will object to the defendant testifying in court, and sometimes even conduct mock trials and cross-examination of his client to make the defendant realize how self-defense testimony can go wrong in the face of prosecution questioning. But Robert S. Frenchman, a defense attorney at Mukasey Frenchman, believes that for a socially well-known defendant like SBF, the temptation to expect to influence the verdict by telling his own story is particularly strong.

"Such a defendant considers himself persuasive, and in most cases it does. But they may forget that they will be confronted with federal judges and prosecutors, and that stories and persuasion are not enough. Frenchman said.

! [Death Throes or Jedi Turnover?] SBF is facing the biggest gamble of his life: defending his innocence] (https://img-cdn.gateio.im/webp-social/moments-69a80767fe-664b4ced3d-dd1a6f-69ad2a.webp)

Since the trial began in early October, a barrage of witnesses have testified that SBF has lied to investors and lenders, tampered with the company’s balance sheet, misappropriated billions of FTX clients’ funds to buy luxury properties, make risky investments, and repay loans, among other things. Witnesses told the jury that the FTX founder, in addition to spending client funds for personal material enjoyment, directed the company to make illegal political donations, put more than $1 billion into celebrity endorsements and sponsorships, and was chronically passive about holes in the company’s balance sheet.

SBF is also portrayed as a ruthless man. His ex-girlfriend, Caroline Ellison, former CEO of FTX’s sister hedge fund Alameda Research, testified that the SBF had sternly rebuked an employee who opposed bribing Chinese officials to get back the frozen $1 billion in cryptocurrency. Former FTX CTO Gary Wang testified that SBF had been trying to reassure FTX customers that their money was safe, even though he knew he was lying.

Former FTX executive Nishad Singh, a longtime friend of SBF’s, says he now feels “betrayed, and all the FTX employees and I have spent 5 years giving our bodies and minds to create something I thought was good and good, but it turned out to be such a horrible monster.”

! [Death Throes or Jedi Turnover?] SBF is facing the biggest gamble of his life: defending his innocence] (https://img-cdn.gateio.im/webp-social/moments-69a80767fe-51fb9e907b-dd1a6f-69ad2a.webp)

The three witnesses, who have pleaded guilty and cooperated with the Government, are core witnesses for the prosecution. If the SBF chooses to testify, prosecutors will have the opportunity to question him about their testimony. SBF will need to answer these questions on its own, and there will be no lawyer to provide advice.

Josh Naftalis, a former prosecutor and partner at Pallas Partners, believes that the defendant’s choice to testify means that the defense has lost control of the situation. “The defendant can say whatever he wants, and the cross-examination process will be very bad.”

! [Death Throes or Jedi Turnover?] SBF is facing the biggest gamble of his life: defending his innocence] (https://img-cdn.gateio.im/webp-social/moments-69a80767fe-9a45ce5428-dd1a6f-69ad2a.webp)

SBF has publicly stated that he did “commit negligence” in management, but not “commit a crime”. In his opening statement at the trial, one of his lawyers said he acted in good faith when trying to save the company from the crisis. SBF’s self-defense could begin as soon as Oct. 26, and it is unclear whether any other testimony will appear with him. However, at this point, it is expected that no one else will be willing to appear in court to support his self-defense. Mark Botnick, a spokesman for the SBF, declined to comment.

While the SBF’s lawyers pointed out some doubts in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, they also did not seem to find any breakthrough in these doubtful defenses. Testifying in court at least gives SBF a chance to explain directly to jurors why he does not believe fraud has been committed.

One reason as to why SBF testified is that his lawyer was recently trying to get him access to the prescription drug Adderall during trial day. A defense attorney said that without the drug, SBF would not be able to concentrate on participating in the trial. It is understood that SBF is receiving the required dose of medication from the prison administration.

Throughout history, while the vast majority of defendants have not chosen to testify in court, there have been some notable defendants in recent years who have chosen to defend themselves.

Elizabeth Holmes, founder of Theranos, was one of them. A jury convicted her last year of four of the 11 criminal charges she faced. One juror told the Wall Street Journal that jurors created a rating system to judge the credibility of witnesses, and on a scale of 1-4, Holmes scored 2, the lowest score of all those who testified.

In Manhattan, former U.S. House member Stephen Buyer testified in his defense in an insider trading trial earlier this year. Eventually the judge found him lying and sentenced him to a longer sentence. U.S. District Judge Richard Berman wrote in his 22-month sentence: "While the defendant has every right to defend his actions, he also has an obligation to tell the truth. ”

Of course, the defendant’s self-defense was also successful. In 2021, a Wisconsin State Legislature jury acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse testified that he defended himself because he felt threatened to his life.

Lara Treinis Gatz, a former federal prosecutor, said there are relatively few cases in history in which defendants prove themselves successful. In her 22-year career, she has only seen one defendant successfully testify herself. And in most cases, it is they who end up sounding the hammer of conviction for the defendant.