Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) faced numerous challenges even before his criminal trial began. He had garnered the disapproval of many in the cryptocurrency industry, raised suspicions from US policymakers, and attracted negative attention from some media outlets seeking sensationalistic angles to associate with the former FTX CEO.
However, these external factors may not have had any impact on the defense presented by SBF’s attorneys, as it has so far failed to provide compelling counterarguments to the prosecution’s narrative. The testimonies from witnesses called by the Justice Department have been clear and understandable, even for those unfamiliar with the complexities of crypto trading and investments.
Caroline Ellison, former CEO of Alameda Research, admitted to manipulating numbers, while Gary Wang, former CTO of FTX, claimed that SBF had directed efforts to enable Alameda to withdraw unlimited funds. Nishad Singh, former engineering director at FTX, testified about the excessive purchases made by Alameda in celebrity endorsements.
During the court proceedings, SBF’s defense lawyers, Mark Cohen and Christian Everdell, frequently raised objections and requested sidebars to address the judge without the jury present. However, they rarely posed questions to the witnesses that significantly benefited SBF’s case or influenced the jury. Jurors have already heard testimony portraying SBF as the instigator behind Alameda’s use of FTX customer funds without their knowledge.
The defense team was able to highlight a few inconsistencies in Singh’s testimony, particularly regarding his knowledge of events in 2022 and his personal financial situation. In their opening arguments, Cohen and Everdell hinted that they would place much of the blame on Ellison for the criminal acts. However, since Ellison, Wang, and Singh all accepted plea deals and provided similar accounts of the events, the defense’s cross-examination appeared weak.
SBF’s legal team will soon call their own witnesses, including the former CEO himself. Calling Bankman-Fried to the stand would only serve to strengthen his case, requiring jurors to believe him over his colleagues. However, while it may be personally satisfying for SBF to testify that he did what he thought was right, it does little to defend his actions or gain sympathy from the jury.
There has been a stark contrast between Bankman-Fried’s public persona before his arrest and during the trial. Previously, he had regular interviews with major media outlets, freely expressed his thoughts on the crypto market on Twitter, and was widely regarded as one of the most popular figures in the industry.
Now, confined to his home with limited internet access, SBF’s visibility has significantly diminished. Few people have heard his voice or seen recent photos of him, as cameras are not allowed in the courtroom and obtaining an image of him from jail is unlikely. He has adopted a more conservative appearance, with trimmed hair and regularly wearing a suit and tie to court, a transformation that would have been unimaginable just a year ago.
SBF’s defense attorneys and New York prosecutors are currently on hiatus until October 26 when court proceedings will resume. The defense team has indicated that they may call up to three witnesses, including Bankman-Fried, compared to the approximately 20 witnesses called by the prosecution. According to Cohen, this strategy will only take a few days to present to the jury, after which closing arguments will commence.
The defense attorneys face a challenging task ahead of them as they strive to counter the prosecution’s case effectively.