Judge expresses sympathy on current situation of cryptocurrency mogul Bankman

63
2
Judge expresses sympathy on current situation of cryptocurrency mogul Bankman

The U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan has expressed his sympathy on the current situation of Sam Bankman-Fried, the co-founder of the now-defunct crypto empire FTX, but he ruled that he should remain in jail during his trial.

Before denying Bankman-Fried's request to be temporarily released from jail to prepare for the trial, Judge Kaplan said Bankman-Fried could face a'very long sentence' and that he could be a flight risk.

Bankman-Fried's lawyer Mark Cohen said that nothing in the record suggests the cryptocurrency mogul would try to flee, arguing that his client voluntarily consented to extradition to the United States from the Bahamas after his arrest in December 2022.

Bankman-Fried's lawyers asked the court to release their client so that they could speak with him after every trial and prepare for the next day - something they could not do if their client is taken back to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn after every trial.

Judge Kaplan said he was sympathetic to the concerns raised by the defense and would make sure that Bankman-Fried would arrive at 7 a.m. on trial days to give him the chance to speak with his lawyers a few hours before the testimony starts.

Bankman-Fried, once considered the 'Golden Boy of Cryptocurrency', is now accused of seven counts of fraud and conspiracy related to the collapse of the cryptocurrency empire he founded. The charges bear a statutory maximum sentence of 110 years in prison, though the judge would determine the actual penalty based on several factors.

Three judges in the second U.S. District Court have ruled that they have violated the law. The Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan denied Bankman-Fried's bail request and upheld an earlier decision made by Kaplan, a court filing dated Sept. 21 revealed.

s conclusions that there was probable cause to believe that [bankman-fried] attempted to tamper with two witnesses... and specifically that he acted with unlawful intent to influence those witnesses, the appellate judges wrote in the ruling.