Sam Bankman-Fried Requests New Trial Over Claims of Judge’s Bias

• Bankman-Fried’s arbitration group contends that the judge’s prejudice influenced the proceeding’s fairness.
• The defence claims crucial evidence that could support Bankman-Fried was not allowed.
• The complaint also criticises the role of his company’s legal counsel in the proceedings.

SBF, the previous CEO of FTX, is asking for a new lawsuit after being found guilty of theft and money laundering. His argument group asserts that U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan showed bias during the examination, which they believe led to an unfair outcome. Fried received a 25-year prison term and was told to forfeit $11 billion. His team argues that the magistrator’s actions unfairly influenced the jury’s decision.

Claims of Judicial Bias

Bankman-Fried’s appeal focusses on accusations that Justice Kaplan displayed bias throughout the hearing. The accused team argues that he went on to ridicule Bankman-Fried’s behaviour and did not believe his testimony. These actions, they say, created an atmosphere that could have influenced the jury against Bankman-Fried.

The defence also claims that Justice Kaplan mocked the  team, further impacting the fairness of the trial. They argue that this pattern of behaviour by the judge is enough to justify a new inquiry with a different tribunal.

Procedural Issues and Denied Evidence

The appeal also emphasises procedural issues that may have hurt the defense. One crucial point is that Bankman-Fried was allegedly denied access to important evidence, known as Brady material, which could have supported his situation. The defence believes this evidence could have shown that his actions were not criminal.

The defence also criticises Judge Kaplan for limiting arguments about Bankman-Fried’s investments. They argue that these investments were efforts to stabilise FTX, not fraudulent actions. They believe that the judge’s restrictions on these arguments prevented Bankman-Fried from fully defending himself.

Sullivan & Cromwell’s Role in the Case

Another issue in the dispute concerns Sullivan & Cromwell, the litigation company that worked as FTX’s founding advocate and later became its bankruptcy lawyer. The defence claims the firm wrongfully pressured Bankman-Fried to resign as Chief Executive Officer  and then gave information to federal prosecutors.  They argue that this relationship made it harder for Bankman-Fried to defend himself properly.

The U.S. attorney’s office, which handled the authorities, has not commented on the demand. Bankman-Fried’s legal team remains hopeful that the alleged judicial bias and procedural issues will result in a new trial. As the release proposal process continues, Bankman remains in detention, awaiting the court’s decision.