Attorneys representing the United States Justice Department rested their case against Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried after more than three weeks of expert witnesses and testimonies from former FTX and Alameda employees.
According to reports from the courtroom on Oct. 26, the U.S. government’s last witness before resting was FBI agent Mark Troiano, who primarily testified on SBF’s involvement in more than 300 groups with the messaging app Signal. Following Toiano’s testimony, Bankman-Fried’s lawyers motioned to dismiss, which was quickly denied by Judge Lewis Kaplan.
SBF’s attorneys, Mark Cohen and Christian Everdell, presented two witnesses before Bankman-Fried. Krystal Rolle, a Bahamas-based attorney previously representing the former FTX CEO, testified she accompanied SBF to a meeting with the Securities Commission of the Bahamas in November 2022 and witnessed him transferring FTX assets to authorities.
Joseph Pimbley from litigation consulting firm PF2 Securities, the defense’s second witness, testified he had been paid more than $50,000 to extract data from Amazon Web Services on Alameda Research’s line of credit with FTX and data on roughly 9 to 11 million users of the crypto exchange. Attorneys with the Justice Department questioned Pimbley on whether he had any knowledge of how FTX funds were used or the “allow negative” button — the feature giving Alameda the ability to trade more funds that the firm had available.
Subscribe to our ‘1 Minute Letter’ NOW for daily deep-dives straight to your inbox! ⚖️ Be the first to know every twist and turn in the Sam Bankman-Fried case! Subscribe now: https://t.co/jQOIYUv6IW#SBFpic.twitter.com/gp7zJu5sgy
Based on reporting from the courtroom, Judge Kaplan often pushed back on questions posed by Everdell or Cohen to witnesses, saying, “This is not helpful” and “Can we get to the point?” At the time of publication, Bankman-Fried had not yet testified, but his lawyers said they expected him to be on the stand for roughly four hours.
Defense attorneys told Kaplan in an Oct. 25 conference call that they planned to have Bankman-Fried testify as part of their case defending the former FTX CEO. Prosecutors previously called former Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison, former FTX chief technology officer Gary Wang and former FTX engineering director Nishad Singh to testify on SBF directing efforts to have Alameda use FTX funds.
Bankman-Fried’s trial is expected to end within a few business days amid closing arguments and the judge considering any motions submitted by prosecutors or defense lawyers. However, the former FTX CEO is scheduled to face five more criminal counts in a second trial expected to begin in March 2024. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges in both cases.
Southport child killer Axel Rudakubana received the second-longest life sentence in English history and the government does not ever want to see him released, Downing Street has said.
Sir Keir Starmer’s official spokesman said ministers “share the public’s disgust at [Rudakubana’s] barbaric crimes” but said imposing a whole life order (WLO) was not possible because of international law.
The 18-year-old was jailed for life with a minimum of 52 years on Thursday for the murder of Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, in July last year at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class.
However, the sentence prompted calls for a change in the law on WLOs, which are usually only imposed on criminals aged 21 or over but can be considered for those aged 18 to 20 in exceptional circumstances.
WLOs ensure that an offender will die behind bars, whereas a life sentence imposes a minimum term that must be served in prison before they are eligible for parole, with convicts then remaining on licence if they are released.
Rudakubana was 17 when he launched the attack, and his sentence is the second-longest tariff on record after Hashem Abedi, the brother of Manchester Arena bomber Salman Abedi, Downing Street said.
Abedi was sentenced to at least 55 years in prison for his part in the bomb attack that killed 22 people – a life order not being possible at the time because he was under 21.
Reforms passed by the Tories extended WLOs to young killers aged 18 upwards at the time of the offence.
Downing Street said on Friday ministers were not looking at further changes, claiming they were prevented from doing so by UN laws.
The spokesman did not name which acts the government was bound by, but Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that people under 18 should not be imprisoned for life with no chance of ever being released.
He said the government did not want to see Rudakubana leave prison and it was “likely he will never be released”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Those calling for a change in the law include Patrick Hurley, the MP for Southport, who has asked the attorney general to review Rudakubana’s jail term under the unduly lenient sentence scheme.
Outrage over the case has also promoted calls from two Reform UK MPs, Lee Anderson and Rupert Lowe, to bring back the death sentence, which was abolished in the UK in 1969.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:38
‘Our lives went with them – he took us too’
Number 10 said there were no plans to bring it back, citing parliamentary votes in recent history which have rejected capital punishment.
The prime minister has also said he will look at changing the law to recognise the “new and dangerous threat” of lone attackers not driven by one ideology.
Rudakubana was sentenced after earlier pleading guilty to the murders, along with the attempted murders of eight other children, who cannot be named for legal reasons, class instructor Leanne Lucas and businessman John Hayes.
He was also convicted of having a knife on the date of the killings, production of the deadly poison ricin, and possessing information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing to commit an act of terrorism.
Judge Mr Justice Goose said he would have been given a whole life term if he had been nine days older.
The judge also said he “must accept” that the prosecution had made it clear the attack did not meet the legal definition of an act of terrorism because there was no evidence of attempting to advance a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
But he added: “His culpability for this extreme level of violence is equivalent in its seriousness to terrorist murders, whatever his purpose.”