Share:
Sam Bankman-Fried claims new evidence of witness pressure by the DOJ, alleging misconduct in his trial that could justify a retrial. He also requests recusal of Judge Kaplan, asserting bias in the original proceedings. As appeals continue, public reaction remains largely skeptical, pointing to his conviction as indicative of his wrongdoing.
Sam Bankman-Fried has resurfaced on social media with fresh allegations about the conduct of US prosecutors during his criminal trial.
The FTX founder claims that new evidence shows officials within the Biden administration’s Department of Justice pressured witnesses, either discouraging them from speaking or pressuring them to alter their testimony.
His posts on X come as his appeals and post-conviction motions continue to move through the courts.
Bankman-Fried is serving a lengthy federal prison sentence after his 2023 conviction on multiple fraud and conspiracy charges linked to the collapse of FTX.
He is now asking the court to revisit both the trial process and the judge who presided over it.
New evidence shows that Biden’s DOJ threatened multiple witnesses into silence or into changing their testimony. My conviction should be thrown out. Judge Lewis Kaplan should recuse himself from this motion. Given his pattern of prejudging defendants—including me, @rsalame7926,
In his post on X, Bankman-Fried argued that the Department of Justice threatened multiple witnesses into silence or encouraged them to change their statements.
He described this as new evidence that, in his view, undermines the fairness of the proceedings.
According to him, such conduct would invalidate the trial and justify overturning the conviction.
He framed the issue as one of due process, claiming that interference with witness testimony compromised the integrity of the case presented to the jury.
At this stage, those allegations remain unproven. No court has yet accepted his claims or ruled that prosecutorial misconduct occurred.
Bankman-Fried also called for US District Judge Lewis Kaplan to step aside from ruling on the matter.
He accused the judge of prejudging defendants and stacking proceedings against him.
In his remarks, he cited what he described as similar treatment toward former FTX executive Ryan Salame and US President Donald Trump.
He argued that this pattern raised concerns about impartiality.
Judge Kaplan oversaw the original trial that led to Bankman-Fried’s conviction. Any decision on recusal would depend on whether the court finds sufficient grounds to question neutrality.
The social media posts align with recent legal filings seeking a new trial.
His defence has argued that jurors were denied access to exculpatory evidence and that the court improperly restricted witness testimony.
Lawyers have previously contended that key evidence relating to FTX’s internal operations and its bankruptcy process was excluded. They say this limited his ability to present a complete defence.
Agree with almost all of this. But FTX was never bankrupt. I never filed for it. The lawyers took over the company and 4 hours later they filed a bogus bankruptcy so they could pilfer it for money.
Courts are still reviewing these arguments. For a retrial to be granted, judges would need to determine that any procedural errors materially affected the verdict.
Reaction on X has been swift and largely hostile.
Many users rejected Bankman-Fried’s assertions outright, arguing that misappropriating customer assets amounts to fraud regardless of solvency.
One post compared the situation to theft, even if the property is later returned.
Misappropriating assets and then lying about it is fraud, regardless of solvency. If I took your car for a joy ride, it would still be theft even if I returned it in one piece. Insolvency is not necessary to be fraud.
Others responded more bluntly, using profanity and personal attacks to question his credibility.
Several pointed to sworn testimony from former associates as evidence supporting the conviction.
Some users also asked why he is still able to post publicly from jail following his unanimous conviction.
Bankman-Fried’s appeals remain active. For now, his conviction stands, and the courts have yet to decide whether any of the issues raised meet the legal threshold required for a new trial.
The post Sam Bankman-Fried pushes for retrial, claims prosecutors pressured witnesses appeared first on Invezz
Read More
Share:
Sam Bankman-Fried claims new evidence of witness pressure by the DOJ, alleging misconduct in his trial that could justify a retrial. He also requests recusal of Judge Kaplan, asserting bias in the original proceedings. As appeals continue, public reaction remains largely skeptical, pointing to his conviction as indicative of his wrongdoing.
Sam Bankman-Fried has resurfaced on social media with fresh allegations about the conduct of US prosecutors during his criminal trial.
The FTX founder claims that new evidence shows officials within the Biden administration’s Department of Justice pressured witnesses, either discouraging them from speaking or pressuring them to alter their testimony.
His posts on X come as his appeals and post-conviction motions continue to move through the courts.
Bankman-Fried is serving a lengthy federal prison sentence after his 2023 conviction on multiple fraud and conspiracy charges linked to the collapse of FTX.
He is now asking the court to revisit both the trial process and the judge who presided over it.
New evidence shows that Biden’s DOJ threatened multiple witnesses into silence or into changing their testimony. My conviction should be thrown out. Judge Lewis Kaplan should recuse himself from this motion. Given his pattern of prejudging defendants—including me, @rsalame7926,
In his post on X, Bankman-Fried argued that the Department of Justice threatened multiple witnesses into silence or encouraged them to change their statements.
He described this as new evidence that, in his view, undermines the fairness of the proceedings.
According to him, such conduct would invalidate the trial and justify overturning the conviction.
He framed the issue as one of due process, claiming that interference with witness testimony compromised the integrity of the case presented to the jury.
At this stage, those allegations remain unproven. No court has yet accepted his claims or ruled that prosecutorial misconduct occurred.
Bankman-Fried also called for US District Judge Lewis Kaplan to step aside from ruling on the matter.
He accused the judge of prejudging defendants and stacking proceedings against him.
In his remarks, he cited what he described as similar treatment toward former FTX executive Ryan Salame and US President Donald Trump.
He argued that this pattern raised concerns about impartiality.
Judge Kaplan oversaw the original trial that led to Bankman-Fried’s conviction. Any decision on recusal would depend on whether the court finds sufficient grounds to question neutrality.
The social media posts align with recent legal filings seeking a new trial.
His defence has argued that jurors were denied access to exculpatory evidence and that the court improperly restricted witness testimony.
Lawyers have previously contended that key evidence relating to FTX’s internal operations and its bankruptcy process was excluded. They say this limited his ability to present a complete defence.
Agree with almost all of this. But FTX was never bankrupt. I never filed for it. The lawyers took over the company and 4 hours later they filed a bogus bankruptcy so they could pilfer it for money.
Courts are still reviewing these arguments. For a retrial to be granted, judges would need to determine that any procedural errors materially affected the verdict.
Reaction on X has been swift and largely hostile.
Many users rejected Bankman-Fried’s assertions outright, arguing that misappropriating customer assets amounts to fraud regardless of solvency.
One post compared the situation to theft, even if the property is later returned.
Misappropriating assets and then lying about it is fraud, regardless of solvency. If I took your car for a joy ride, it would still be theft even if I returned it in one piece. Insolvency is not necessary to be fraud.
Others responded more bluntly, using profanity and personal attacks to question his credibility.
Several pointed to sworn testimony from former associates as evidence supporting the conviction.
Some users also asked why he is still able to post publicly from jail following his unanimous conviction.
Bankman-Fried’s appeals remain active. For now, his conviction stands, and the courts have yet to decide whether any of the issues raised meet the legal threshold required for a new trial.
The post Sam Bankman-Fried pushes for retrial, claims prosecutors pressured witnesses appeared first on Invezz
Read More
