Sam Bankman-Fried may face jail time for witness tampering, as prosecutors allege he shared his ex’s diary entries.
Sam Bankman-Fried may face jail time for witness tampering, as prosecutors allege he shared his ex's diary entries.
Sam Bankman-Fried’s Leaked Google Docs Spark Legal Battle
In a surprising turn of events, prosecutors are seeking to send Sam Bankman-Fried to jail over allegations of witness tampering. The controversy unfolded after the disclosure of Caroline Ellison’s private Google Docs, which were leaked by Bankman-Fried to the New York Times. The leaks, coupled with earlier contact with the general counsel for FTX, have prompted prosecutors to argue that Bankman-Fried’s actions amount to witness tampering.
Prosecutors wasted no time in filing a motion with a federal judge on Wednesday to incarcerate Bankman-Fried. Assistant US Attorney Danielle Sassoon argued in court, “No set of release conditions can ensure the safety of the community.” US District Judge Lewis Kaplan has acknowledged the request and will review additional filings before making a ruling.
The incident revolves around the recently surfaced Google Doc entries of Caroline Ellison, a former co-CEO of Bankman-Fried’s trading firm, Alameda Research. The entries, penned by Ellison last year, reveal her frustrations and anguish while working in a tumultuous relationship with Bankman-Fried. The New York Times reported her feelings of apprehension and her desire to diminish herself and defer to others in Bankman-Fried’s presence.
Federal prosecutors contend that Bankman-Fried leaked the documents to undermine Ellison as she prepares to testify against him in an upcoming criminal trial slated for October. Prosecutors believe that the leaks, along with Bankman-Fried’s prior contact with FTX’s general counsel, constitute witness tampering.
According to Assistant US Attorney Danielle Sassoon, the documents leaked by Bankman-Fried were not admissible in court. These documents, in the government’s view, were intended to embarrass Ellison. Sassoon stated during the court hearing, “He provided documents not in the public record that the court did not deem admissible at trial that, in the government’s view, were meant to embarrass Ms. Ellison.”
- 3 signs US economy poised to exceed growth expectations
- Fed No recession in 2021
- UBS highlights 3 Fed mistakes since 2021 and their impact on the ec...
Bankman-Fried’s legal representatives argue that his interaction with the journalist was a response to overwhelmingly negative press coverage. Prosecutors, however, challenge this explanation, pointing out that Bankman-Fried has sent over 100 emails and made 1,000 calls to journalists, including contacting the New York Times journalist who wrote the story based on the leaked documents numerous times.
While Bankman-Fried’s defense attorney, Mark Cohen, claims that his client only showed a few pages of the entries to the journalist and did not send copies, prosecutors maintain that Bankman-Fried’s persistent behavior demonstrates intent. Sassoon stated, “With this defendant, where there’s a will, there’s a way. And with this defendant, there is certainly a will.”
In response to the allegations, prosecutors requested a gag order to restrict the public statements made by the parties involved in the case, citing Bankman-Fried’s recent actions as an attempt to interfere with a fair trial. Bankman-Fried’s defense team acquiesced to the gag order proposal but argued that sharing Ellison’s entries with a journalist was within their client’s rights. Furthermore, they noted that such disclosures only served to further tarnish Bankman-Fried’s image.
Caroline Ellison, who pleaded guilty in December to charges including conspiracy to commit money laundering and wire fraud, has remained silent on the matter. Lawyers representing both Bankman-Fried and Ellison declined to comment.
The case against Sam Bankman-Fried demonstrates the complexities surrounding privacy, witness tampering, and the media’s role in shaping public opinion. As legal proceedings continue, it remains to be seen how this incident will affect the upcoming trial and the perception of those involved.
