David Mills, the Stanford College legislation professor who oversaw Sam Bankman-Fried‘s (SBF) protection throughout his latest fraud trial, acknowledged that the case was “virtually unimaginable to win” throughout a Dec. 12 interview with Bloomberg.
Based on Mills, the prosecution’s strong lineup of witnesses, which included key FTX insiders like Caroline Ellison, Gary Wang, and Nishad Singh, considerably tilted the case in opposition to the fallen crypto mogul.
“I assumed it was virtually unimaginable to win a case when three or 4 founders are all saying you probably did it. Even when they’re all mendacity by way of their tooth, it’s actually, actually arduous to win a case like that.” Mills remarked.
Mills additionally characterised SBF as a problematic witness below cross-examination, highlighting that SBF repeatedly disregarded authorized counsel’s methods for addressing questions throughout the cross-examination course of.
Mills underscored the significance of his proposed protection technique for SBF, which was to acknowledge the allegations in opposition to him, hinting at a compelling narrative that might unfold from this admission. Mills acknowledged that Bankman-Fried had issue accepting this technique. The problem of opposing the testimonies of 5 people with only one counter-argument grew to become much more strenuous resulting from SBF’s frequent straying from the prearranged protection technique.
SBF’s trial occurred in October, practically a 12 months after FTX’s chapter submitting. The change founder was discovered responsible on all seven counts and faces greater than 100 years in jail for his position within the collapse of his crypto empire.
Trial observers highlighted the inefficacy of SBF’s protection, noting that his authorized crew struggled to discredit the majority of the proof offered by the prosecution. Furthermore, most of these testifying in opposition to him have been former associates, which compounded his challenges.
What subsequent for SBF’s authorized battle?
Following his conviction, the potential for an attraction has been debated. Nevertheless, SBF’s lead counsel, Mark Cohen, just lately instructed Decide Lewis Kaplan that their consumer was not submitting post-trial motions.
In the meantime, SBF nonetheless faces a second trial slated for March subsequent 12 months. He faces expenses involving 5 counts of financial institution fraud and bribery. Moreover, his sentencing for the preliminary trial has been scheduled for March 28.