6 months ago
Sam Bankman-Fried’s (SBF) lawyers person heavy criticized the Department of Justice’s sentencing memorandum successful a March 19 letter to Judge Lewis Kaplan.
In the letter, the lawyers described the DOJ’s proposed maximum condemnation of 50 years imprisonment for SBF arsenic “disturbing” and “with marked hostility.”
According to the lawyers:
“The memorandum distorts world to enactment its precious “loss” communicative and casts Sam arsenic a depraved super-villain; it attributes to him acheronian and megalomaniacal motives that alert successful the look of the record; it makes apocalyptic prophecies of recidivism; and it adopts a medieval presumption of punishment to scope what amounts to a death-in-prison sentencing recommendation.”
They further argued that the government’s memorandum wholly ignores SBF’s information and vulnerabilities, adding that the projected sentencing was the government’s effort to “break Sam Bankman-Fried” arsenic determination has been nary “federal suspect convicted of a non-violent discourtesy who served a 40-50 twelvemonth condemnation and was released.”
Reduced sentencing
SBF’s ineligible squad presented a bid of arguments to advocator for a reduced condemnation for him.
Firstly, they contended that determination were nary tangible losses since the bankruptcy proceedings would guarantee afloat restitution to each customers and lenders.
The lawyers wrote:
“There were ne'er losses. The wealth has ever been available. Assets remain. Each unfortunate quoted successful the government’s absorption volition person 100 cents connected the dollar — positive interest. This would beryllium intolerable if the estate’s assets had disappeared into Sam’s idiosyncratic pockets.”
Furthermore, they rebutted the prosecution’s portrayal of Bankman-Fried arsenic being motivated by greed. They highlighted his philanthropic endeavors, pointing retired that SBF had fixed his net distant earlier creating the failed crypto entities FTX and Alameda Research.
Moreover, they challenged the government’s assertion that Bankman-Fried posed a important hazard of re-offending, citing probe indicating debased rates of recidivism among white-collar, educated individuals with cleanable anterior records.
“Offenders with nary transgression history, similar Sam, are the slightest apt to re-offend. Nor does discourtesy level foretell recidivism. And offenders with a assemblage acquisition are little apt to recidivate,” they concluded.
As such, they projected a reduced condemnation of a maximum of 78 months, equivalent to 6.5 years, for their client.
The station SBF lawyers slam ‘death-in-prison’ condemnation connection citing deficiency of losses appeared archetypal connected CryptoSlate.
English (US) 