According to Senior District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who presides over the case, the jury will begin deliberating on November 2nd. Trial observers speculate that a verdict may be announced in the near future.
Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Nicholas Roos summarized the government’s case concisely. He argued that the defendant, Bankman-Fried, deceived and defrauded numerous FTX customers who had deposited billions into the now-defunct cryptocurrency exchange, as reported by InnerCityPress.
Bankman-Fried allegedly established FTX as a feeder entity for Alameda long before Ellison joined as head of trading. Eventually, Bankman-Fried assumed sole CEO responsibilities after Sam Trabucco’s resignation. The prosecutor highlighted Bankman-Fried’s elusive responses during questioning and his extensive knowledge of decisions made at Alameda Research, the crypto trading firm of which he owned 90%. In court, Bankman-Fried repeatedly claimed not to recall certain details, amounting to approximately 140 instances.
AUSA Roos asserted that the MIT graduate calculated the odds of stealing customers’ funds and avoiding detection. This assertion was corroborated by key witnesses Caroline Ellison, Gary Wang, and Nishad Singh, who all held prominent positions.
The prosecution argued that Bankman-Fried deliberately cultivated a positive public image by engaging with world leaders and policymakers while secretly orchestrating illegal activities behind closed doors. They accused him of enticing customers with fraudulent marketing schemes and celebrity endorsements.
Federal prosecutors contended that Bankman-Fried’s defense of seeking advice from counsel and claiming ignorance did not meet the burden of proof. They emphasized that only the FTX founder had the necessary access to authorize decisions, which ultimately led to the bankruptcy of his two cryptocurrency companies.
Bankman-Fried, as per Roos, persisted in spending and misappropriating customer cryptocurrency even after his team alerted him to the escalating risks. Roos urged the jury to focus on the evidence presented rather than being swayed by storytelling tactics.
Roos reminded the court that FTX’s founder is facing charges on seven counts, stemming from four crimes: defrauding FTX customers, defrauding FTX investors, defrauding Alameda’s lenders, and engaging in money laundering.
In his closing argument, defense attorney Mark Cohen portrayed Bankman-Fried’s case as having two distinct narratives. One narrative depicted the government vilifying FTX’s former CEO, while the other portrayed the defendant as a victim of his rapidly expanding cryptocurrency empire.
Cohen asserted that Bankman-Fried’s actions were not fraudulent and highlighted his decision to repay lenders instead of absconding with millions as a demonstration of good faith. The defense lawyer emphasized that Ellison and other former executives raised no concerns until FTX suffered a complete collapse. Cohen also pointed out that the government’s witnesses only testified to secure plea deals and avoid imprisonment.
“Sam did his best. Some decisions turned out very well. Some decisions turned out poorly. But it’s not a crime,” stated Cohen. He concluded by highlighting that former executives like Ellison, who were responsible for the company’s management, failed to fulfill their duties and attempted to shift blame onto Bankman-Fried.
Rebuttal summations are slated to take place on the 16th day of the trial, to be followed by the announcement of the verdict. Although a decision is anticipated in the near future, there is no definitive timeframe for the jury’s deliberation.