To defend himself not guilty, SBF faces the biggest gamble in his life

Original source: Wall Street Journal

Original compilation: BitpushNews irvin Cheung

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried (known as SBF) is known for his risk-taking, and now he is facing perhaps the biggest gamble of his life: defending himself.

For nearly three weeks, the former crypto tycoon has been on trial in New York on suspicion of fraud, money laundering and other crimes, and he has watched some of his former colleagues and friends testify as prosecution witnesses. They told jurors that SBF directed 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 in customer funds.

Federal prosecutors will conclude the trial of the case this week, and judging from the existing evidence, SBFs conviction is almost a certainty; but in the eyes of people like SBF, perhaps this Jediary comeback The scene is the moment that inspires him to strive forward. His defense lawyers believe that they cannot rationally let things go, but judging from the course of the trial and the SBFs limited options, this may be his last chance.

As of now, unless SBF does something unexpected, he will definitely be convicted. said Evan Barr, a former federal prosecutor and partner at Reed Smith Law Firm.

Barr said the SBF may be hoping his testimony will win over at least a few jurors, leaving the jury divided on the verdict.

Under normal circumstances, lawyers will object to the defendant testifying and sometimes even conduct mock trials and cross-examinations on their clients to make the defendant realize how self-defense testimony can go wrong when faced with questioning by the prosecutor. But defense attorney Robert S. Frenchman of the law firm of Mukasey Frenchman believes that for a defendant as socially prominent as SBF, the temptation to tell his or her story to influence the verdict is particularly strong.

Such defendants think they are persuasive, and in most cases they are. But they may forget that they are facing a federal judge and prosecutors, and story and persuasiveness alone are not enough, Frenchman said. explain.

Since the trial began in early October, a string of witnesses have testified that SBF continuously lied to investors and lenders, tampered with the companys balance sheet, and diverted billions of FTX clients funds to purchase luxury properties, high-risk investments, and repay Loans, etc. Witnesses told jurors that in addition to using client funds for personal material enjoyment, the FTX founder directed the company to make illegal political donations, pour more than $1 billion into celebrity endorsements and sponsorships, and had a chronic negative impact on the companys balance sheet loopholes on.

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

Nishad Singh, a long-time friend of SBF and a former FTX executive, said he now feels betrayed. I and all FTX employees have devoted our bodies and minds over the past five years to create something that I thought was beautiful and good. The result is He is such a terrifying monster.

The three witnesses, who have pleaded guilty and are cooperating with the government, are the prosecutions core witnesses. If SBF chooses to testify, prosecutors will have the opportunity to question him about their testimony. The SBF will need to answer these questions on its own and will not have a lawyer standing by to provide advice.

Josh Naftalis, a former prosecutor and partner at the law firm Pallas Partners, believes that the defendants 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.

SBF has publicly stated that he did commit errors in management, but did not commit a crime. In opening statements at the trial, one of his lawyers said he acted in good faith as he tried to save the company from the crisis. SBFs self-examination may begin as soon as October 26, and it is not yet known whether other witnesses will appear in court with him. But at this point, it is expected that no one else would be willing to appear in court to support his self-defense. SBF spokesman Mark Botnick declined to comment.

Although SBFs lawyers pointed out some doubtful points in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, they did not seem to find any breakthroughs in these doubtful defenses. Testifying in court would at least give SBF the opportunity to explain directly to the jurors why he did not believe fraud had been committed.

One reason SBF gave for testifying is that his attorneys were recently trying to get him access to the prescription drug Adderall during his trial date. A lawyer for the defense team said that without the drug, SBF would not be able to concentrate during the trial. It is understood that the SBF is receiving the requested doses of the drug from the prison administration.

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

Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes is one of them. A jury last year found her guilty on four of the 11 criminal charges she faced. One juror told the Wall Street Journal that on a rating system created by jurors to judge the credibility of witnesses, Holmes received a 2 on a scale of 1 to 4, the lowest score of anyone who testified.

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

Of course, defendants can also succeed in self-examination. In 2021, a Wisconsin State Court jury acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse testified that he acted in self-defense because he felt his life was in danger.

Former federal prosecutor Lara Treinis Gatz said that historically successful cases of defendants proving themselves are still quite rare. In her 22-year career, she has seen only one defendant successfully self-examine. And in most cases, it is the defendants who ultimately win the verdict.