
Sam Bankman-Fried’s lawyer Mark Cohen gave a last statement Wednesday, portraying the FTX laminitis arsenic idiosyncratic who “did his best” and made mistakes but did not perpetrate crimes.
Bankman-Fried’s Lawyer: ‘Mistakes Are Not a Crime’
Sam Bankman-Fried‘s attorney, Mark Cohen, is well-known for representing convicted enactment offender Ghislaine Maxwell. This year, helium is defending the erstwhile FTX chief. After a bid of witnesses and testimony from Bankman-Fried himself, Cohen delivered his closing statement to the courtroom jurors.
“Mistakes are not a crime. Why does the authorities get to talk twice? Because they person the load of proof,” Cohen told jurors successful his closing statement. He said the authorities tried to crook Bankman-Fried into “some benignant of monster” but had not shown transgression intent. Cohen’s closing statements were streamed connected the societal media level X by Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press
Cohen acknowledged determination was a “messy truth” to however Bankman-Fried and his cohorts ran FTX but said helium was innovative successful gathering a “legitimate business.” He portrayed the illness of FTX arsenic a liquidity situation and not a Ponzi scheme.
“People suffered losses is not the question,” Cohen said. “Sam didn’t person to testify. The authorities was unfair. If helium answered excessively long, they said it was excessively long. Same for short. If helium tried to explain, they said helium was being evasive. It’s heads I win, tails you lose.”
The lawyer added:
Unlike the government’s witnesses, Sam was acold from polished. He couldn’t retrieve everything helium said to Congress. No 1 tin cognize that. If he’s the transgression mastermind they accidental helium is, wherefore did helium talk to Congress?
Cohen attacked the credibility of prosecution witnesses who took plea deals, saying they shifted blasted to Bankman-Fried to get sentencing reductions. He said the wide codification entree and transfers betwixt FTX and Alameda were not concealed crimes but portion of a young, undisciplined institution trying to innovate.
The defence lawyer cited backstage chats and emails to contend Bankman-Fried was discussing rescues for FTX up until the end. “Ask yourself, if you’re a fraudster, wherefore would you repay the lenders, and not conscionable instrumentality the wealth and run?” Cohen asked.
In conclusion, Cohen portrayed the lawsuit arsenic “a quality successful concern judgment” and not transgression behavior. He acknowledged that “some decisions turned retired precise poorly” but maintained that Bankman-Fried told the truth. “Sam acted successful bully faith, helium didn’t privation to defraud. Find him not guilty,” Cohen implored the jury.
What bash you deliberation astir Sam Bankman-Fried’s defense? Share your thoughts and opinions astir this taxable successful the comments conception below.