Subscribe to Dark Markets
<100 subscribers
Share Dialog
Sam Bankman-Fried is never, ever getting out of prison. At least, not via an appeals process.
Yesterday on Twitter I listened to and summarized the hilariously inept Sam Bankman-Fried appeal hearing from Monday. This isn’t a ‘serious’ analysis because, as you’ll see, that would be a waste of everyone’s time. I’m pasting the tweets below unedited, because I’m not going to put more effort into rebutting this gorilla dust than they did coming up with it.
(Original thread: https://x.com/davidzmorris/status/1986554266274717781
Find the hearing recording here, under “2025,” then second from the top: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html)
Subscribe
Point the first:
These sad sacks of shit open the appeal argument with “but he gave all the money back.” Which A) no he fucking didn’t and B) Judge Kaplan explained in the simplest possible terms at trial that “even if you pay it all back, you still robbed the bank.”
No no, wait, I have to backtrack. Because the recording opens with Sam’s defense attorney testily going “No, this is mine, This is all my stuff, please-” as someone is seemingly trying to move it. Worth the price of admission
This was all laid out in the filing already, but it’s still incredible to hear them again trying to go with “my lawyer told me it was legal” [Advice of counsel defense.] Especially crazy defense when YOU HIRED THE POKER FRAUD LAWYER
·
October 25, 2023
SBF’s lawyer claims prosecution argues the money “was gone forever,” which was not at all argued, in fact. And indeed here we get the first interjection, and the first of many audible laughs, from an appelate judge.
Judge sez there was ample opportunity at trial for defense to argue re: evidence of loss (their attempt to introduce the performance of the Anthropic investment, for example) and on the advice of counsel defense. The fact that they lost doesn’t make it unfair.
Subscribe
In fact there’s a bit of a rosetta stone here: the entire SBF defense boils down to “if I lose/if the exchange blew up/if I lost everyone’s money it’s because of unfairness, not because of my own failings.”
·
Mar 13
Worth observing that the lawyer here doesn’t sound terribly elite. Very shaky-voiced, fairly articulate but clearly anxious and worked up. Again she slips in “never got it back” in characterizing the prosecution’s argument about losses, which is simply counterfactual.
They’re circling back around to “this was a margin exchange and some of the investments he had made were very profitable” (literal close quote from the appeals lawyer). It’s actually shocking that they’re not pivoting at all.
“When you point to objective evidence [of solvency], you’re talking about what came after [the bankruptcy/conviction],” one judge points out, blowing apart the basic premise of every extant defense of SBF
“there were very valuable assets in the estate that corroberated [SBF’s] belief in its solvency,” argues Bankman-Fried’s appeals lawyer, sounding vaguely drunk. “The misrepresentations were not as to solvency, but liquidity,” a judge interjects. BING BONG
“Whether they could get their money if they asked for it.” This judge sees directly through the solvency/liquidity misdirect SBF apologists have been regurgitating. IT’S A TOTAL NON-SEQUITOR. ANTHROPIC MOONING (also a fraud btw) HAS NO IMPACT ON THE CRIMINAL NATURE OF https://x.com/hashtag/FTX?src=hashtag_click
This has the feeling of a Qanon or other cultist being faced with serious questioning for the first time and having their beliefs torn to shreds. I think Sam’s appeals lawyer might cry, and we’re only eight minutes in
They’re trying to hair-split the Advice of Counsel defense, which Sam couldn’t and didn’t claim, but now wants to retroactively claim because lawyers were present when he made certain decisions, even though he didn’t consult them this is absolutely fucking buckwild
The alternate reality rabbit-hole this line of argument goes down is mind-bending. Appeals lawyer is now arguing that Sam relied on lawyers for the Terms of Service, specifically for the Margin Lending clauses (16/18).
Sam’s defense hinges on the idea that effectively ALL customer deposits enabled margin lending. This is obviously untrue, but Sam’s defenders have made it an unshakeable truism because it is their only option. So now the appeals lawyer is implicitly reiterating that fiction.
“The fact that a lawyer drafted a certificate of incorporation ... help me understand how that is evidence relevant to any of the counts,” asks a judge, audibly sneering. “Welll, it’s all relevant, and I think you have to look at the whole picture,” replies appelate. “I’m trying very hard to,” the Judge deadpans.
“But, but this, you know, what happened here was the government claimed these entities were set up to take customer money so that the defendent could use it as he pleased,” argues appelate. [THIS WAS NOT ACTUALLY THE ALLEGAtION] “So the fact that lawyers were involved in creating the entity, in drafting the, um, the contract, whereby the funds were, were deposited ... “ Folks I’m already losing steam here, good god
“Hiring a lawyer is evidence of good faith?” a judge sneers. They are so cooked
Circling back, they’re returning to the role of lawyers in drafting the terms of service. The appelate lawyer makes it sound as if the issue is that Sam trusted lawyers and *followed* the TOS. But of course the real issue is that he violated the TOS insanely. The defense can never admit that, of course.
More discussion: Sam couldn’t claim an advice of counsel defense because he couldn’t testify that he’d actually told lawyers all the relevant facts (that is, moving funds). That’s a requirement to claim lawyers misled you. But there’s only evidence of four insiders.
Sam’s apellate is basically trying to argue Sam was acting in good faith because there were *lawyery vibes,” even as he was actively hiding activities from his lawyers.
·
November 27, 2023
Judge reminding us that in a mid-trial hearing, Sam testified under oath that he had *never discussed Alameda’s borrowing of FTX funds with lawyers.* Sam’s apellate disputes that characterization, vaguely
Sam’s apellate yet again reiterates the straw man claim that the government claimed victim’s money was “gone forever.” I sat through the entire trial and this language was entirely absent from the prosecution. Liars hire liars to represent them, quelle surprise
I finally realize who Sam’s apellate lawyer reminds me of: Jordan Peterson. I still think she might cry, but she’s also working up a real head of righteous dudgeon
“You won some things, you lost some things ... it almost seems like you’re spending more ink on Judge Kaplan than you are on the merits,” a judge moots, almost gently. “I don’t agree at all, your honor,” Sam’s apellate damn near shouts back at him.
And then she starts talking immediately about Kaplan’s demeanor, and says the “rulings were incredibly one-sided.” But she’s not disputing the merits of any single procedural decision. lol lmao
Subscribe
WHOOO Thane Ren for the prosecution. You hated him in U.S. v. Storm, but now he’s back in the role that made him famous.
Rehn rightly and simply makes clear that the government did not in fact argue that the money was “gone forever,” but focused instead on the 2022 crisis and the fraudulent claims around it. #FTX
They basically ask Rehn three quick questions then move on to a pretty obtuse discussion of the $11 billion forfeiture order, which is balanced against a recovery process. Show’s over, I think.
·
October 14, 2023
Ooh, very cool, Rehn articulates the point that customers were repaid in dollar terms at claim date. One customer “thought he had 3 bitcoin, those are worth about 8x now.” Good to have Rehn on the record arguing that victims were not in fact substantively “made whole.” #FTX
Honestly, spending court time advancing a theory as insanely counterfactual as the one presented by Sam Bankman-Fried’s appelate lawyer should be sufficient grounds for disbarment.
Hearing this person grandstanding about the protection of the legal system in her closing statement is frankly nothing less than sickening. These have from the very beginning been evil, sick people masquerading as justice warriors. Right through to the end.
Dark Markets is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Subscribe
Dark Markets
No comments yet