Based

The US government has finally responded to Sam Bankman-Fried’s (SBF) appeal, stating that the initial conviction and forfeiture order against the former CEO of the bankrupt exchange should be affirmed. In its response, the government countered all the arguments raised in the SBF appeal. 
The US team, led by the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Damian Williams, filed the response on December 13. They noted that the District Court made the right decisions throughout the trial and was not biased against SBF, as the former CEO had claimed. 
To prove this point, they argued that the court was right to instruct the jury to consider fraudulent intent, as there was overwhelming evidence of this in the trial. 
According to the government counsel, Bankman-Fried intended to cause loss to the victims, and none of the trial court instructions wrongly influenced the jury to convict him of this intention to cause loss. 
They <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.9d455c17-4ee8-40a0-bafd-1eeeb19acafb/gov.uscourts.ca2.9d455c17-4ee8-40a0-bafd-1eeeb19acafb.50.0.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">wrote</a>: 
<blockquote>
 “(The) loss to the victim was not “an incidental byproduct of the scheme,” Kelly, 590 US at 402—obtaining the victims’ property was the core object of Bankman-Fried’s deception.”
</blockquote> 
Based on this, the government argued that the court’s instruction to the jury to ignore the SBF “No Ultimate Harm” defense in the trial was correct. 
During the trial, SBF said that the instruction was unnecessary but later argued on appeal that it was a wrong statement of law. However, the US counsel claims that standard instructions in fraud trials and temporary deprivation of another’s property for personal profit is enough to constitute a scheme to defraud. 
<h3 id="span-style-font-weight-400-government-says-the-exclusion-of-evidence-by-the-trial-judge-was-correct-span">Government says the exclusion of evidence by the trial judge was correct&nbsp;</h3> 
Meanwhile, a chunk of SBF’s arguments in the appeal relied on what he believed was the wrongful exclusion of evidence that could have helped his case by the trial judge. Unsurprisingly, the government focused on disproving these arguments, noting that the judge was right. 
During the trial, the judge ruled that the evidence that SBF could present should be limited to show that he was acting in good faith. In his attempt to prove this, SBF wanted to present evidence showing that his investments with FTX funds were strategic, and he repaid the debt to customers and creditors. He also tried to prove that his decisions were based on legal counsel. 
However, the trial judge limited the evidence he could provide and sometimes made him give evidence without the jury, noting that it was not specific, and some could even mislead the jury. SBF argued in his appeal that these limitations ruined his case. 
In its response, the government stated that its own evidence about losses suffered due to SBF actions is relevant, and even if the former CEO had presented evidence showing he could repay, it would still not absolve him of the crime. It added that the court was right to order the criminal forfeiture of $11 billion against SBF as these funds were fraudulently obtained, and the size of the forfeiture is commensurate to the gravity of the action. 
<h3 id="span-style-font-weight-400-what-next-for-sbf-span">What next for SBF?</h3> 
With the US government now filing its response to the appeal, it is up to SBF to reply to the counterarguments raised, and he has until January 31 to do that. However, whether the convicted CEO, who is currently serving his 25-year sentence, will win the appeal remains questionable. 
The core of his appeal has been that he did not get a fair trial and was presumed guilty by the prosecutors and judges involved in his case. However, many legal experts believe that it is unlikely for the Appellate court to grant a retrial especially if the appellant cannot sufficiently prove that the trial court acted inappropriately. 
While SBF has alleged some bias, noting the several criticisms of his counsel by the trial judge, the government lawyers noted that the judge also criticized the prosecution during the trial. 
Meanwhile, FTX is already planning to repay the customers with 98% of the customers likely to get their refunds within the next three months. However, they will be receiving their funds at November 2022 valuations even though prices have more than tripled since then. 
From Zero to Web3 Pro: Your 90-Day <a href="https://www.cryptopolitan.com/crypto-career-launchpad-waitlist/?utm_source=cryptopolitan&amp;utm_medium=banner&amp;utm_campaign=ccl-waitlist-3" target="_blank">Career Launch Plan</a>

US urges court to uphold Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) conviction

Table of Contents

Cryptopolitan_News

Other articles published on Dec 19, 2024

Will Bitcoin Price Crash to $40,000?

Ripple vs. SEC: The Agency’s Actions Could Backfire And Lead To Supreme Court Intervention

Qubetics Simplifies Crypto Payments, XRP Launches RLUSD Stablecoin, and Binance Coin Powers DeFi ...

Qubetics and Its Real-World Solutions Headline the Best Cryptos to Watch Alongside XRP Facing Vol...

Hong Kong Approves Four New Crypto Exchanges Amid Regulatory Push

Qubetics and Its Token Highlight the Best Cryptos with 1000X Potential Alongside Bitcoin and Bitc...

Join our free newsletter for daily crypto updates!