The US government has responded to Sam Bankman-Fried’s appeal in the case against the former CEO of a bankrupt exchange. The government’s response, led by the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Damian Williams, argued that the initial conviction and forfeiture order against SBF should be affirmed. They countered all of the arguments raised in the SBF appeal, stating that the District Court made the right decisions throughout the trial and was not biased against SBF, as claimed by the former CEO.
The government emphasized that there was overwhelming evidence of fraudulent intent in the trial, with Bankman-Fried intending to cause loss to the victims. They argued that the court’s instruction to the jury to consider this fraudulent intent was correct, as obtaining the victims’ property was the core object of SBF’s deception. The government also defended the court’s decision to instruct the jury to ignore SBF’s “No Ultimate Harm” defense during the trial.
A significant part of SBF’s appeal relied on the exclusion of evidence by the trial judge, which he believed could have helped his case. However, the government focused on disproving these arguments, stating that the judge was right in limiting the evidence presented by SBF. The judge ruled that the evidence SBF could provide should be limited to show that he was acting in good faith, and some evidence could mislead the jury if presented.
The government asserted that even if SBF had presented evidence showing he could repay the funds obtained fraudulently, it would not absolve him of the crime. They defended the court’s decision to order the criminal forfeiture of $11 billion against SBF, stating that these funds were fraudulently obtained, and the size of the forfeiture is commensurate with the gravity of the action.
Now that the US government has filed its response to the appeal, it is up to SBF to reply to the counterarguments raised by January 31. However, legal experts believe it is unlikely for the Appellate court to grant a retrial unless SBF can sufficiently prove that the trial court acted inappropriately. Despite alleging bias in the trial, FTX, the exchange associated with SBF, is already planning to repay customers, with 98% likely to receive refunds within the next three months.
In conclusion, the response filed by the US government in the appeal against Sam Bankman-Fried’s conviction and forfeiture order highlights their arguments against SBF’s claims of unfair trial and bias. The government defended the decisions made by the District Court throughout the trial and argued that the evidence presented overwhelmingly showed fraudulent intent on SBF’s part. It remains to be seen how SBF will respond to the counterarguments raised by the government and whether he will be able to overturn his conviction.
