SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Late Monday, legally embroiled FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried moved to dismiss the majority of criminal charges lobbed against him by the United States government after his cryptocurrency exchange went bankrupt in 2022.
In documents filed in a Manhattan federal court, lawyers from the law firm Cohen & Gresser LLP shared Bankman-Fried's first official legal defense. Lawyers accused the US of a "troubling" and "classic rush to judgment," claiming that the government didn't even wait to receive "millions of documents" and "other evidence" against Bankman-Fried before "improperly seeking" to turn "civil and regulatory issues into federal crimes."
After FTX's collapse last year, federal prosecutors acted quickly to intervene, within a month alleging that Bankman-Fried was stealing billions in customer funds, defrauding investors, committing bank and wire fraud, providing improper loans, misleading lenders, transmitting money without a license, making illegal campaign contributions, bribing China officials, and other crimes. Through it all, Bankman-Fried has pleaded not guilty. Now, in his motion to dismiss, Bankman-Fried has requested an oral argument to "fight these baseless charges" and "clear his name." He's asking the court to dismiss 10 out of 13 charges, arguing that federal prosecutors have failed to substantiate most of their claims.
"The Government's haste and apparent willingness to proceed without having all the relevant facts and information has produced an indictment that is not only improperly brought but legally flawed and should be dismissed," Bankman-Fried's lawyers argued in one of several memos filed yesterday.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2023, @03:00PM (6 children)
That's not really what he's saying in this motion. It's more like "you say I'm a dishonest piece of shit, but so what if I am?"
A motion to dismiss by the defendant is always something like this. The defendant is making an argument of the form "Even if everything you say I did is true, that's not even a crime, so we don't need to bother with this trial." The court is not asked to consider any evidence or other merits of the case, and is at this point just considering everything claimed by the prosecution at face value.
These procedural matters don't involve any jury.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by SomeRandomGeek on Thursday May 11 2023, @03:42PM (3 children)
It is true that intent to deceive is only one of the five elements needed to prove fraud, and is not illegal by itself. https://www.newyorklitigator.com/fraud.html#:~:text=The%20elements%20of%20a%20fraud,civil%20wrong%20and%20a%20crime. [newyorklitigator.com]
But I wonder which of the other four elements SBF's lawyers think they are going to weasel out on?
The making of a statement? Clearly he did that.
The falsity of the statement? Also blindingly obvious.
Reasonable reliance on the statement by the injured party? Hmm....
Injury sustained as a result of the reliance? Bigtime.
The only element that seems remotely in doubt is that reliance on the statement was reasonable. Are they perhaps trying to argue that their client was so obviously a lying piece of shit that it was unreasonable for anyone to ever rely on anything he said? That would explain the disparaging of their own client.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2023, @08:32PM
You can just read the documents to find out the answer to this question. They are not disparaging their own client. TFA is very misleading.
For example, one of charges TFA makes misleading statements about regards the charge of bank fraud conspiracy. Defense argues that the government's allegations to not meet the elements of this crime because the bank was not deprived of any property, and that past decisions bind the court to reject the government's alleged harm to the bank as insufficient to meet the requirements of this crime. Obviously this is a subtle question of law, really nobody but the court can answer it.
But one thing that is not subtle is that the defendant is most certainly not admitting to any other elements such as the factual question of whether or not defendant actually lied to the bank.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday May 11 2023, @08:50PM (1 child)
Ah...the Tucker Carlson Defense [npr.org], a bold gambit!
(Score: 2) by mth on Friday May 12 2023, @12:57AM
Yes, it reminded me of that as well.
Another similarity, although probably with less real-world use: Rimmer's trial [youtube.com] from Red Dwarf.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2023, @03:47PM (1 child)
OP here...
I see what you're saying and you are correct, this is communication between the defendant's lawyers and the court, no jury is involved. This is the defendant trying to argue that there is no case here (for the particularly listed charges).
Extending this further though, assuming the court rejects this motion/these motions, this communication becomes part of the record. I am relatively confident that the prosecution will use this information of self-acknowledged assholery in order to manipulate the jury. This will be used to demonstrate aspects of the character of the defendant in order to cast doubt on any and all other statements they make in their own defense.
I was assuming the judge to not accept the motion and thinking ahead of the actual court case in front of a jury.
That all being said, you are indeed accurate in terms of the context of this particular communication.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2023, @07:53PM
Something being part of the record and something being shown to the jury are entirely different things. A jury is asked to make decisions only on actual, factual disputes before the court.
But there is no "self-acknowledge assholery". TFA is really misleading. Despite linking to the actual motions, the authors of TFA appear to not have actually read them. For example, TFA says this:
But what the motion actually says about the bank aplication is:
Nowhere did the defendant "concede" that they lied to the bank. Of course they didn't, that would be stupid! Stating "You allege I did X and that is not a crime" is not even remotely the same thing as saying "I admit to doing X and that is not a crime".
Defendant might be wrong, X might actually be a crime, but that's now up for the judge to decide. If the judge denies the motion, defendant will probably then argue "you have no proof that I did X" (in a motion asking for summary judgement in their favour) which is still not admitting to doing X but I'm sure Ars Technica will try to spin it that way anyway.