Defense in the FTX case seeks cross-examination of prosecution witnesses

Lawyers for FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) filed a motion to conduct a cross-examination of the prosecution’s witnesses. This was reported by Decrypt.

According to the lawyers, they are currently limited in the ways they can obtain information to build their defense.

“The government objected to the defense’s attempt to question government witnesses who diverged from its theory, but the defense should not be hindered from “concretizing” their theories through cross-examination,” the lawyers said.

Additionally, the defense asked to bar prosecutors from relying on non-professional witnesses for expert testimony.

In an attempt to prove FTX’s innocence in the fraud case, the lawyers argued that the company adhered to its terms of service regardless of how customers understood them.

In a ответе to this motion prosecutors stated that the law is not limited to breaches of the written contract. According to the evidence they presented, Bankman-Fried abused client funds and repeatedly distorted how FTX treated them.

The prosecution did not object to cross-examining its witnesses by the defense, except for questions designed to show that the government acted negligently in its dealings with FTX.

“There is no basis to exclude or limit evidence of customers’ beliefs regarding their understanding and interpretation of how FTX would handle their deposits,” the prosecutors said.

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney and Buchalter shareholder Daniel Silva believes the defense is shaping the testimonies of future witnesses to prevent further damage to SBF’s image. In his view, the victims’ testimony “makes jurors more sympathetic” to the government’s position.

Alongside the high likelihood of an acquittal, SBF’s lawyers face a narrower set of avenues to challenge the government’s narrative. By contrast, the prosecution still has more room to maneuver.

“If there are seven counts currently before the court and three or four different theories on these counts, prosecutors only need to prove one of them, and they could seek a maximum sentence of 20 years. By contrast, SBF would have to prevail on all of them to obtain an acquittal,” Silva explained.

Earlier, former Alameda Research head Caroline Ellison disclosed to the court details of the meeting prior to the company’s collapse. At that meeting she reported a backdoor into the exchange’s customer funds and illiquid investments.