– U.S. prosecutors argue that the existing legal framework is sufficient to charge Sam Bankman-Fried for fraud-related violations in relation to misappropriation of customer assets.
– The Department of Justice dismisses Bankman-Fried’s claims that the absence of relevant law or guidance is a defense, stating that prohibitions on misappropriation already exist.
– The DOJ states that the absence of regulation does not impact whether money was entrusted to Bankman-Fried by his victims and should not confuse the jury.
– Bankman-Fried’s request to present evidence concerning the recovery of assets in the FTX bankruptcy proceeding is denied.
– The DOJ does not object to Bankman-Fried presenting evidence of his charitable efforts, as long as it is for a proper purpose and not for character purposes.
– The trial for Bankman-Fried’s case began with jury selection, with potential jurors instructed not to research the case or discuss details with others.
Section 1: Prosecutors argue existing legal framework sufficient to charge Sam Bankman-Fried for fraud-related violations
On October 4, 2023, U.S. prosecutors reiterated their stance that the current legal framework is adequate to charge Sam Bankman-Fried for fraud-related offenses. The Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissed Bankman-Fried’s claims that the absence of relevant laws or guidance affects whether his alleged use of customer deposits constitutes misappropriation or permissible business practice. The prosecutors argued that there are already laws prohibiting misappropriation of customer assets, and these are the same laws that Bankman-Fried has been charged with violating.
Section 2: Absence of regulation not a relevant factor in determining misappropriation
The DOJ further stated that while the existence of a law may be relevant in establishing a statutory duty of care, the absence of regulation is not a determining factor in whether money was entrusted to Bankman-Fried’s care by his victims. The DOJ cautioned against introducing evidence or arguments about the absence of regulation, as it might confuse the jury by implying that the absence of a regulation implies no misappropriation occurred.
Section 3: Bankman-Fried’s request for evidence reconsideration denied
The DOJ also urged the court to deny Bankman-Fried’s request for reconsideration regarding the preclusion of evidence on the recovery of assets in the FTX bankruptcy proceeding. The details of the request were not provided in the article, but the prosecutors argued against Bankman-Fried’s ability to present such evidence.
Section 4: Bankman-Fried allowed to present evidence of charitable efforts
Regarding Bankman-Fried’s desire to present evidence of his past charitable giving and philanthropy, the DOJ stated that it does not object as long as the evidence is presented for a proper purpose and not for propensity or character purposes. This suggests that Bankman-Fried will be permitted to provide evidence of his charitable activities as long as it serves a legitimate purpose in the courtroom.
Section 5: Trial begins with jury selection
The trial for Sam Bankman-Fried commenced on Tuesday with the process of selecting the jury. It is unclear if potential jurors are fully aware of the scale and significance of the case, as they were instructed not to independently research the matter or discuss it with others. The final jury of 12 jurors and six alternates will be chosen from this pool of potential jurors.
Note: This summary highlights the main points made in the article and does not provide an opinion or analysis of the case.
This is sponsored by: Learn Bitcoin Option