- US prosecutors deem the second trial unlikely for FTX’s ex-CEO Sam Bankman-Fried.
- Lack of new evidence cited; the initial trial covered major aspects of the case.
- The guilty verdict stands; sentencing is set for March 28, 2024, as scheduled.
United States prosecutors have signalled that there may not be a second trial for Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), former CEO of the defunct cryptocurrency exchange FTX.
This development comes as stakeholders seek swift resolution, emphasizing the public interest and the anticipation of compensation details for FTX account victims. With the first trial concluding with Bankman-Fried found guilty on seven fraud charges, the focus is now on the sentencing set for March 28, 2024.
No second trial for Sam Bankman-Fried
Recent reports indicate that United States prosecutors are unlikely to pursue a second trial against Sam Bankman-Fried, the former CEO of FTX. The prosecutors emphasize that there is insufficient new evidence to warrant another trial, given that the majority of pertinent information was presented during the initial proceedings.
This assertion aligns with the desire for a swift resolution, particularly as victims await compensation details following the collapse of FTX in November 2022.
The decision not to pursue a second trial follows the guilty verdict reached on November 3, where Bankman-Fried faced charges including wire fraud, securities fraud, and money laundering conspiracy. Despite the verdict, Bankman-Fried’s request for an adjournment of his sentencing hearing was declined by Judge Lewis Kaplan.
The judge highlighted the absence of prior objections to the initially set sentencing date and Bankman-Fried’s prior extension for submitting sentencing materials. As a result, Bankman-Fried’s sentencing is scheduled for March 28, 2024.
This development underscores the judicial determination to adhere to established timelines and procedures. With the March 2024 sentencing date looming, the legal repercussions for the ex-CEO of FTX are becoming increasingly imminent. The case has drawn significant attention not only due to the high-profile nature of the individual involved but also the broader implications for victims seeking restitution from the cryptocurrency exchange’s downfall.
