The U.S. Department of Justice has formally requested Judge Lewis Kaplan to revoke the bail of Sam Bankman-Fried, the Founder of FTX. The government agency is pushing for him to be held in detention until his trial. In their latest legal filing, DOJ attorneys argued that Bankman-Fried did not deny sharing former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison’s diary with the New York Times. They pointed to what they perceived as the defendant’s evasive actions.
According to recent reports, the New York Times published an article that included excerpts from Ellison’s diary. Prosecutors laid the blame on Sam Bankman-Fried for providing the quotes from the diary to the media outlet. Additionally, they accused him of having communication with the reporter who authored the article. On the other hand, the lawyers representing the FTX founder argued against sending him to jail for talking to the reporter, as they believe this raises significant First Amendment concerns and infringes upon his right to free speech.
Sam Bankman-Fried Faces DOJ Allegations of Intimidation and Harassment
In the recent legal submission, attorneys from the Department of Justice (DOJ) asserted that the defendant, Bankman-Fried, went beyond merely exercising his right to speak to the press. They claimed that he took covert actions with the intention of unfairly discrediting a trial witness and prejudicing the jury pool.
The prosecutors highlighted that the witness in question, Ellison, who has already pleaded guilty, is the defendant’s former girlfriend and a crucial witness in the upcoming trial. On the other hand, Sam Bankman-Fried’s lawyers argued that his attempts to discredit Ellison were insignificant. However, the latest filing accused Bankman-Fried of witness tampering, attributing the media’s focus on Ellison’s personal life and private writings to his sustained efforts.
The New York Times article titled “Inside the Private Writings of Caroline Ellison” came under scrutiny by the prosecutors, who contended that without Sam Bankman-Fried leaking the private documents, the story wouldn’t have existed. They emphasized that he did not offer any comment or perspective but deliberately shared materials designed to intimidate, harass, and embarrass Ellison, with the aim of provoking an emotional response in potential jurors and influencing their perception of the witness.
As a result of these filings, Judge Kaplan may schedule another hearing to address the matters raised in this case.
