Sam Bankman-Fried’s Attorney Presents Closing Argument: Mistakes, Not Crimes

Sam Bankman-Fried’s Attorney Presents Closing Argument: Mistakes, Not Crimes

In the high-stakes trial of Sam Bankman-Fried, his attorney Mark Cohen crafted a compelling closing argument that positioned his client’s actions as mistakes rather than criminal acts. Cohen, known for representing infamous figures such as Ghislaine Maxwell, began by emphasizing that mistakes alone should not constitute crimes. He highlighted the burden of proof on the government and accused them of casting Bankman-Fried as a monstrous villain without showing criminal intent. Cohen portrayed FTX’s downfall as a liquidity crisis rather than a Ponzi scheme and attacked the credibility of prosecution witnesses who shifted blame onto his client. Through private chats and emails, he sought to demonstrate Bankman-Fried’s intention to continue supporting FTX until the end. Ultimately, Cohen implored the jury to perceive the case as a difference in business judgment rather than criminal behavior, urging them to find Bankman-Fried not guilty.

▶ [Kucoin] Transaction fee 0% discount CODE◀

Bankman-Fried’s Lawyer: ‘Mistakes Are Not a Crime’

Mark Cohen, the attorney representing Sam Bankman-Fried in his ongoing case, delivered a powerful closing argument to the courtroom jurors. Cohen, who has previously represented convicted sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell, portrayed Bankman-Fried as someone who made mistakes but did not commit crimes. He emphasized that mistakes are not inherently criminal and highlighted the burden of proof that rests on the government.

Cohen stated, “Mistakes are not a crime. Why does the government get to speak twice? Because they have the burden of proof.” By emphasizing the government’s duty to prove criminal intent, Cohen aimed to challenge the portrayal of Bankman-Fried as a monster without established criminal intent. He argued that the government had failed to meet this burden, effectively presenting Bankman-Fried’s defense.

Government’s Burden of Proof

In any legal case, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and this case is no exception. Cohen stressed the importance of the government meeting this burden to establish the wrongdoing alleged by the prosecution. By highlighting this legal principle, Cohen aimed to create doubt about the validity of the government’s case against Bankman-Fried.

The burden of proof is a fundamental aspect of the legal system and requires the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. By reminding the jurors of this responsibility, Cohen effectively framed the case as a matter of whether the government had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims against Bankman-Fried.

Portraying Bankman-Fried

Cohen sought to humanize Bankman-Fried by countering the prosecution’s portrayal of him as a monster. He argued that Bankman-Fried’s actions should be viewed in the context of his intent, rather than through a lens of criminality. Cohen emphasized the absence of criminal intent in Bankman-Fried’s actions, aiming to counteract any negative perception created by the government.

By contrasting the government’s narrative with the reality of Bankman-Fried’s motivations, Cohen aimed to undermine the credibility of the prosecution’s portrayal of his client. He wanted the jurors to see Bankman-Fried as a fallible human being who made mistakes but did not engage in criminal behavior.

FTX as a Legitimate Business

Cohen acknowledged the messy truth surrounding the operations of FTX, emphasizing the innovation and legitimacy of the business. He contended that the collapse of FTX was a result of a liquidity crisis rather than a Ponzi scheme, challenging the prosecution’s claims.

Cohen aimed to defend FTX’s business practices by highlighting the challenges faced by a young and undisciplined company striving for innovation. He emphasized how FTX’s code access and transfers between FTX and Alameda were not secret crimes but rather part of the company’s attempts to innovate and disrupt the market.

Collapse of FTX

To counter the prosecution’s narrative of FTX as a fraudulent enterprise, Cohen presented an alternative explanation for the collapse of the platform. He argued that the collapse was a result of a liquidity crisis rather than evidence of criminal intent or a Ponzi scheme.

By challenging the prosecution’s claims, Cohen aimed to create doubt about the allegations against Bankman-Fried. He wanted the jurors to question whether the collapse of FTX could be attributed to unwise business decisions as opposed to intentional criminal behavior.

▶ [Kucoin] Transaction fee 0% discount CODE◀

Unfair Treatment by the Government

Cohen criticized the government’s handling of the case, raising concerns about bias and prejudice. He questioned the fairness of the government’s questioning strategies and their selective interpretation of Bankman-Fried’s testimony.

By highlighting the perceived unfair treatment by the government, Cohen aimed to create sympathy for Bankman-Fried and cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution’s case. He wanted the jurors to question whether the government’s actions and tactics were in line with the principles of justice and fairness.

Cohen Attacks Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses

Cohen attacked the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses who had taken plea deals, suggesting that they shifted blame onto Bankman-Fried to secure sentencing reductions. By highlighting the witnesses’ incentives to shift blame, Cohen aimed to discredit their testimony.

Cohen questioned the motives of the witnesses and their reliability as sources of evidence. He presented their plea deals as potential sources of bias and questioned the veracity of their statements. By doing so, Cohen aimed to undermine the credibility of the witnesses and cast doubt on the strength of the prosecution’s case.

Difference in Business Judgment

Cohen argued that the case ultimately boiled down to a difference in business judgment rather than criminal behavior. He acknowledged that some decisions made by Bankman-Fried had turned out poorly but maintained that Bankman-Fried had acted in good faith.

Cohen stressed Bankman-Fried’s honesty and good faith, seeking to establish his client’s integrity and lack of criminal intent. By positioning Bankman-Fried’s decisions as matters of business judgment rather than evidence of criminal behavior, Cohen aimed to persuade the jurors to deliver a not guilty verdict.

Mark Cohen, Sam Bankman-Fried’s Attorney

Mark Cohen, known for representing notable individuals such as Ghislaine Maxwell, has taken up the role of defending Sam Bankman-Fried in his ongoing legal battle. Cohen’s background and experience as a defense attorney lend credibility to his arguments and strategies in court.

Cohen’s defense strategy revolves around painting Bankman-Fried as someone who made mistakes but did not engage in criminal behavior. By leveraging his expertise and previous experience, Cohen aims to present a robust defense for his client.

Cohen’s Closing Argument

In his closing argument, Cohen made a final statement to the jurors, summarizing Bankman-Fried’s defense and highlighting the key points of contention. He emphasized that the focus should be on Bankman-Fried’s mistakes rather than characterizing them as crimes.

Cohen’s closing argument aimed to leave a lasting impression on the jurors and sway their opinions in favor of Bankman-Fried. By weaving together the various elements of the defense, he sought to create a compelling narrative that would resonate with the jurors.

Final Statement to Jurors

In his final statement to the jurors, Cohen implored them to find Bankman-Fried not guilty. He summarized the main points of Bankman-Fried’s defense and emphasized that his actions were driven by mistakes, not criminal intent.

Cohen’s final statement aimed to leave a lasting impression on the jurors and reinforce the defense’s key arguments. By appealing to their sense of fairness and justice, he sought to secure a favorable verdict for Bankman-Fried.

Highlighting Mistakes, Not Crimes

Throughout his closing argument, Cohen consistently emphasized that Bankman-Fried’s actions should be viewed as mistakes rather than crimes. By reframing the narrative in this way, Cohen aimed to create sympathy for his client and cast doubt on the prosecution’s portrayal of Bankman-Fried as a criminal mastermind.

Cohen’s strategy of highlighting mistakes rather than crimes aimed to shift the focus onto potential errors in judgment rather than intentional wrongdoing. By doing so, he sought to undermine the prosecution’s case and create doubt in the minds of the jurors.

Requesting Jury to Find Bankman-Fried Not Guilty

In his closing argument, Cohen made a clear request to the jurors: find Bankman-Fried not guilty. By explicitly asking for a not guilty verdict, he aimed to ensure that his message was received loud and clear by the jurors.

Cohen’s request for a not guilty verdict served as a call to action for the jurors, urging them to consider the defense’s arguments and acquit Bankman-Fried of the charges brought against him. He aimed to leave a lasting impression on the jurors and secure a favorable outcome for his client.

Article word count: 1199 words

▶ [Kucoin] Transaction fee 0% discount CODE◀