FTX Founder’s Trial: DOJ and Defense Submit Jury Instructions

• The DOJ and SBF’s defense lawyers drafted a set of jury instructions, estimating the impending decision of Judge Lewis Kaplan.
• The defense team highlighted the concept of “property”, arguing that it does not include “intangible interest”.
• The prosecutors argued against considering any evidence for SBF’s moral beliefs.

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and defense lawyers of the ill-famed Sam Bankman-Fried recently drafted distinct sets of jury instructions, estimating the impending decision of Judge Lewis Kaplan, the federal judge responsible for the case.

Both teams submitted the filings on Thursday evening as a result of long discussions and debates since before Bankman-Fried’s trial, incorporating the unique concerns of the respective attorney groups.

Following the debacle of the once prominent crypto trading platform FTX, its former CEO, Sam Bankman-Fried was alleged to have misappropriated billions of customer funds for personal benefits. October has witnessed his long-anticipated trial.

The whole crypto community eagerly awaits the final words of Judge Kaplan, while the defense lawyers proposed the draft, stating that a witness’s belief as to something that the law should or should not have prohibited is not “sufficient to convict anyone of any charge.”

Furthermore, the draft explained that in order to understand a witness’s belief, “you are to break it down to the elements, assess whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to each of those elements, and then, with that determination made, you can render a unanimous verdict.”

Meanwhile, the DOJ argued that the “defendant’s intent to repay misappropriated or fraudulently obtained funds is not a defense”. Further, the prosecutors remained firm in their stance against the FTX founder’s misconduct, requesting the court disregard any argument or evidence produced by the defense team to prove the defendant’s “moral or political beliefs”.

The filing also referred to Bankman-Fried’s philosophy of “effective altruism,” by which the defendant argued that his actions were driven by a desire to do something fruitful for the world. Acknowledging the court’s repeated recognition of the claim as contextually invalid, the prosecutors added that the defendant’s arguments don’t justify fraud or other criminal charges.

While the defense team argued that the concept of “property” does not include intangible interests, the prosecutors strongly opposed it. The DOJ filing was strictly framed as opposing the arguments presented by the defense lawyers, claiming that they are not actual defenses.