Sam Bankman-Fried’s Bail Revocation Upheld Amid Witness Tampering Concerns
The United States Attorney’s Office has firmly asserted the denial of bail for former FTX CEO, Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried, citing concerns about potential witness tampering and the inability to ensure the safety of witnesses.
In response to SBF’s appeal against the bail revocation, prosecutors have unequivocally deemed it “meritless.”
Prosecutors contend that SBF had, on two separate occasions, either committed or attempted witness tampering in direct violation of court orders, casting doubt on his willingness to adhere to any release conditions.
The first instance of SBF’s alleged contact with witnesses came to light earlier this year, in January, when he initiated communication with FTX.US’s former General Counsel, who also serves as a potential trial witness represented by legal counsel.
The second incident occurred in July 2023 when a New York Times report exposed private journal messages belonging to Caroline Ellison, the former CEO of Alameda and an associate of SBF.
SBF’s legal representatives confirmed that he had leaked the journal himself.
Prosecutors promptly informed the District Court about SBF’s covert disclosure of Ellison’s private writings, which had the potential to discredit her and influence the jury’s perception when the case goes to trial.
On July 26, during a court conference, prosecutors sought the revocation of SBF’s bail due to his violations of bail conditions and his attempts to influence or intimidate witnesses.
Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan, presiding over the case in the Southern District of New York, revoked SBF’s bail on August 11. Prior to this, SBF had been out on bail since December 2022, posting a bond of $250 million.
Subsequently, on August 28, SBF’s legal team appealed against the bail revocation, asserting that his communication about Ellison with the press was protected under the First Amendment. Prosecutors countered this argument by highlighting that Judge Kaplan had already considered SBF’s First Amendment rights in the original ruling.
The judge made it clear that when communication is undertaken with the intent to intimidate or influence a witness, it constitutes a crime, and the First Amendment does not protect such actions.
The prosecutors presented two primary arguments against SBF’s appeal:
First, they emphasized that the District Court’s finding of probable cause regarding SBF’s two instances of attempted witness tampering while on pretrial release was not in error.
Second, they reiterated that Judge Kaplan’s finding of probable cause regarding SBF’s attempt to tamper with Witness 1 was also not in error.
Prosecutors further pointed out that the defendant did not contest or dispute the judge’s ruling when SBF attempted to contact the former FTX.US counsel, a clear indication of his alleged intent to tamper with witnesses.