By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE, July 26 – Sam Bankman-Fried of FTX was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, leading to his arrest in the Bahamas on December 12, and extradition to the US on December 21.
On February 28, with Bankman-Fried free on bond, FTX's Nishad Singh pleaded guilty to six criminal charges. Inner City Press put the charging document on its DocumentCloud here.
On March 10, Judge Kaplan held a proceeding. Inner City Press was there and live tweeted, thread here.
On March 27, Bankman-Fried's lawyers filed a sealed version of conditions it said DOJ agreed to - adding that "the Government does not object to the sealing request." Full letter on Patreon here.
On July 13, SBF's lawyers sent Judge Kaplan a sealed list of people, not stating even the number of people, for whom the security guard requirement - to show not sharing phones with SBF - should to waived. They argue, as they did with the co-signers, that the list should be sealed. And they say the SDNY prosecutors agree.... Letter on Patreon here
Early on July 14, Inner City Press filed to unseal the list, filing on DocumentCloud here.
On the evening of Friday, July 21, in an order otherwise about banning SBF from leaking more of Caroline Ellison's diaries, Judge Kaplan ordered a July 26, 2 pm appearance, "The parties shall be prepared on July 26 to address, among other things, the adequacy and continuation of the current bail conditions."
On July 26, when the US asked for remand and got a briefing schedule on it, Inner City Press was there and live tweeted, thread here:
OK - now at US v. Bankman-Fried, hearing on US request to remand SBF to jail after leak of Caroline Ellison's Google docs to NYT - and about sealed list of secret visitors?
Assistant US Attorney Danielle Sassoon: The government is requesting the defendant's remand, revocation of bail. He had used his release to try to intimidate witness Caroline Ellison. He made 100 calls to the reporter of the NYT article, some for more than 20 min
AUSA Sassoon: He has had substantial communications with Michael Lewis, who has also visited the residence. We are concerned what will be published on the eve of trial. When he contacted the FTX US GC [General Counsel], he suggested a phone call
AUSA Sassoon: The defendant only shared the material in person. There is a visitors' log [which the prosecutors, according to SBF, agreed to expand and keep sealing - Inner City Press filed to unseal
AUSA Sassoon: Your honor asked us if we were putting too much trust in the defendant. We were proceeding incrementally but we now agree, we put too much trust in him. He used his Google Docs and Google Drive to leak these materials to the NYT
Judge Kaplan: Walk me through the elements. AUSA Sassoon: This was to intimidate Ms. Ellison and to send a message to other witnesses.... With the FTX US GC, it was an attempt to corruptly influence him. SBF's lawyer: We didn't even enough time -
SBF's lawyer: They have to prove intimidation or obstruction by clear and convincing evidence, they haven't. They just dropped documents on us-- Judge Kaplan: Which documents are those? SBF's lawyer: The pen registers
Judge Kaplan: I believe the standard is probable cause. SBF's lawyer: They are preceding under another section Judge Kaplan: Ms. Sassoon? SBF's lawyer: This defendant believes that given the 1000s of articles about Ms. Ellison, he believed he could do this SBF's lawyer: I'd like to ask the reporters here if they have had government sources about this case... People sign in, no secret list
[NOTE: SBF asked earlier in the month to have unnamed people no long sign in, Inner City Press filed: courtlistener.com Notice (Other) – #175 in United States v. BANKMAN-FRIED (S.D.N.Y., 1:22-cr-00673) – CourtListener... NOTICE of Application to unseal list filed July 13, 2023 as to Samuel Bankman-Fried (Lee, Matthew) (Entered: 07/14/2023)
[For those asking about SBF's lawyer "pen register" comment, recent starting to be filed in PACER are USA v. Pen Register items, all of which are nonetheless sealed, "This document is not available." Judge Kaplan: Using "could interfere with a fair trial" is too vague, on its face. SBF's lawyer: Maybe it's a drafting problem. We want our client to be able to work with with defense team, and to visit with his friends on the list, assuming your Honor agrees
SBF's lawyer: This case is unusual, not only due to press coverage but also discovery. If printed out, it would be the size of three Sears Towers, I'm dating myself. We have to use the Internet
SBF's lawyer: If he's remanded [to jail] the searchability goes away. Or it takes time to make the laptop and we have an October 2 trial date [NOTE: many many defendants in SDNY are in detention in MDC and Essex, right up to trial]
SBF's lawyer: This is a complex case, we could not work with our client if he were remanded. We ask you to deny the application. Or given us a change to make a written submission. Judge Kaplan: Ms. Sassoon? AUSA Sassoon: Your Honor put out an order about bail
Judge Kaplan: Mr Everdell communicated with my deputy that they would respond by July 21. I was told I'd get it on the 22nd, but it never came or came very late. It didn't address the bail issue. AUSA Sassoon: It did, at the end. Judge Kaplan: It was cursory.
AUSA: We didn't have the benefit of the visitors' log [which they had agreed to make further secret] or the pen registers... We don't want to say that white collar criminals have more leeway
[Note: SDNY just agreed to free UK Joe Lewis
AUSA Sassoon: The FBI is maintaining the pen register Judge Kaplan: Is the defense proffering the documents themselves? SBF's lawyer: Only to the government's filter team. Give me a moment. We could show them to the court. Judge Kaplan: Ex parte? SBF's lawyer: Yes
Judge Kaplan: Do they involve privilege? SBF's lawyer: We don't have to provide them. Judge Kaplan: I'm being asked to draw an inference about the documents, how many documents. Aren't you interested in the government seeing them? [Lawyers whisper with SBF]
SBF's lawyer: We would be willing to provide them. Judge Kaplan: We'll talk about a schedule in a minute. Ms. Sassoon, does the government's case on this boil down to, We have the communications with the FTX US general counsel...
Judge Kaplan: That gave good reason to believe it was to influence that individual's testimony. Now you have unfavorable publicity about him, there is an avowed intention to influence the opinion of the public, including jurors and prospective witnesses
Judge Kaplan: You learn since July 20 of the exceeding volume of defendant's contact with this NYT author - and you say, probable cause of witness tampering, justification for revocation. Is there more? AUSA Sassoon: This is not a First Amendment issue
AUSA Sassoon: There was the use of a VPN, the contact with the journalist on background or off the record, I don't know what the term is... Judge Kaplan: Let's talk about getting this teed up. Any objection to a order striking out "interfere with a fair trial"?
SBF's lawyer: No objection, your Honor. Judge Kaplan: Who should go first with a written submission? The government. When? AUSA Sassoon: Friday or tomorrow.
Judge Kaplan: Friday is fine with me. Careful attention to the statute and case law SBF's lawyer: We'll respond by Aug 1. Judge Kaplan: Reply August 3. I'll docket the order. I am mindful of the First Amendment, and of the government's interest. Mr. Bankman-Fried, you better take it seriously too. Adjourned
The case is US v. Bankman-Fried, et al., 22-cr-673 (Kaplan)
More with analysis on Substack here
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
