The trial of the former CEO of the defunct crypto exchange FTX, Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), is gradually coming to an end as the defendant’s fate could be decided starting on November 2. The defendant faces up to 110 years if found guilty of all charges by members of the jury.
Time For A Verdict In Sam Bankman-Fried’s Case
The prosecution and defense were both able to give their closing arguments on November 1, thereby paving the way for the jury to begin deliberating on a verdict for each charge starting on November 2. However, before then, the prosecution will have a chance to make a concluding argument, which is known as a rebuttal.
It is expected that this shouldn’t take so much time, which means the Jury could get instructions the same day and proceed to give their verdicts. It, however, remains to be seen how long members of the jury will take to make their decision as they are meant to decide if the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for each charge.
FTT price at $1.2 | Source: FTTUSDT on Tradingview.com
Closing Arguments: Full Circle Moment
When Bankman-Fried’s case began four weeks ago, the prosecution’s opening argument was clear and concise as they alleged that the defendant misappropriated customers’ funds and he knew what he was doing. On the other hand, the Defense argued that he acted in “good faith” and that he didn’t defraud anyone.
Four weeks on, both parties were telling the same tale as they gave their closing arguments. Just that this time, they had laid the foundation for their assertions, having called several witnesses and tendered several exhibits to bolster their case.
As is the norm, the prosecution was the first to give its closing arguments, which Assistant US Attorney Ross handled. The prosecutor first alluded to how Bankman-Fried’s “Pyramid of deceit” came to light about a year ago when customers were unable to withdraw their funds following a bank run on the crypto exchange.
He stated that over time, it became clear that the defendant was responsible for the exchange’s collapse as he spent his customers’ money and lied about it. As to where it went, the defendant used these funds to cover expenses, purchase properties, and make political donations.
Meanwhile, Bankman-Fried’s primary counsel, Mark Cohen, took the closing argument for the defense. He stated that there was no criminal intent on Bankman-Fried’s part and noted that none of the witnesses testified that the defendant told them to violate the law. According to him, Bankman-Fried acted in “good faith” and that any mistake he made along the way cannot taken as a crime.
