Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder and former CEO of the now-defunct cryptocurrency exchange FTX, is vigorously defending himself in his ongoing legal battle with the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). On September 1, he filed a memorandum, prepared by his attorney Mark Cohen, calling on the court to reject the recent in limine requests from the prosecutor, which he characterizes as “impractical” and “lacking legal basis.”

Bankman-Fried’s Response to DOJ’s Requests

In the memorandum, Cohen argues that the DOJ’s requests are “unfounded and overly broad” and, in many instances, cannot be appropriately addressed at this stage of the proceedings. He contends that the government’s requests seek to introduce “irrelevant and prejudicial evidence related to conduct that is no longer under consideration or was never charged,” as well as to allow “extensive categories of hearsay and other improper evidence.”

Furthermore, Cohen asserts that these requests would undermine any potential defense that Bankman-Fried may present, potentially prejudicing the fairness of the trial. Consequently, he maintains that the court should not grant the DOJ’s requests.

DOJ’s Recent Actions

This legal response follows a series of recent actions taken by the DOJ in the case. On August 28, the government submitted a motion requesting the court to prohibit all of Bankman-Fried’s expert witnesses from testifying during the trial. The DOJ argued that these proposed experts and their disclosures had various deficiencies, justifying their exclusion from the proceedings.

Subsequently, on August 29, the prosecutor filed another motion, characterizing Bankman-Fried’s defense against fraud allegations as “irrelevant” in its current form. They also requested additional disclosures to supplement the existing defense strategy.

SBF’s Ongoing Legal Battle

In parallel, Bankman-Fried’s legal team is actively seeking temporary release arrangements, citing inadequate accommodations provided by authorities to prepare for the upcoming October trial. Additionally, they are in the process of appealing the court’s decision to revoke his bail, a decision made on August 11. The defense contends that the bail revocation was a form of “retaliation” against Bankman-Fried’s exercise of First Amendment rights.

The legal confrontation between Sam Bankman-Fried and the DOJ continues, with both parties vigorously pursuing their positions in preparation for the impending trial.

Disclaimer: This article is based on information available as of September 04, 2023, and is intended solely for informational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice or an endorsement of any party involved in the legal proceedings. Readers are encouraged to follow developments in the case through official sources and consult legal professionals for any legal matters.