SBF’s Attorneys Deny Witness Intimidation Allegations

Sam Bankman-Fried’s attorneys have denied that he attempted to intimidate witnesses in his criminal prosecution by speaking with New York Times reporters and argued that he should not be jailed.

In a letter dated August 1 to Judge Lewis Kaplan, Bankman-Fried’s attorneys argued that the prosecution’s efforts to revoke his bail and detain him were “extremely thin” and primarily based on assumptions and innuendo.

They added that Bankman-Fried’s communication with a New York Times reporter was not an attempt to intimidate former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison or contaminate the jury pool, nor was it sufficient to justify his pre-trial detention.

The lawyers argued that Bankman-Fried’s contact with reporters was a “proper exercise of his rights to make fair comment on an article that was already in progress and for which the reporter had alternative sources.”

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) attempted to revoke Bankman-Fried’s parole on July 28, alleging that his decision to share Ellison’s diary with The New York Times was a harassment and intimidation attempt.

In October of this year, Ellison is anticipated to testify against SBF in his upcoming criminal prosecution.

Instead, Bankman-Fried’s attorneys suggested that the government leaked Ellison’s diary to the New York Times, arguing that the government unlikely had anything to do with the article.

“The language of the story itself, which discusses when the government will begin preparing its trial witnesses and describes documents not provided to the reporter by Mr. Bankman-Fried, strongly indicates that it was a source,” said the attorneys.