Sam-Bankman-Fried. Image: Cryptopotato
A United States judge has approved the Justice Department’s (DOJ) motion to bar all witnesses proposed by Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), the founder and former CEO of bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange FTX, from testifying at his upcoming trial.
According to an order filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Lewis Kaplan excluded the testimonies of SBF’s proposed witnesses but denied the disgraced CEO’s motion to bar the DOJ’s witness.
Late last month, the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss seven expert witnesses proposed by SBF’s legal team, insisting that their opinions may confuse the jury, were inappropriate subjects for expert testimony, and irrelevant to the trial.
The proposed expert witnesses included Lawrence Akka, Thomas Bishop, Brian Kim, Joseph Pimbley, Bradley Smith, Peter Vinella, and Andrew Di Wu. They were to give general opinions on various subjects.
However, Judge Kaplan has ruled in favor of the Justice Department, stating that there are no bases and reasons for SBF’s witnesses to give their testimonies. The judge said Bishop and Kim “completely fail” to satisfy the requirements to stand as witnesses as their disclosures do not state the specific opinions they would be giving.
Smith’s proposed testimony was denied because his disclosure statement contains no opinions, the substance of what he intends to say is unclear, and they would be irrelevant to the issues at trial. The judge also deemed his testimony improper because he sought to instruct the jury on matters of law.
In addition, the judge found no bases and reasons for the proposed testimonies of Akka, Pimbley, and Vinella, deeming them incapable of testifying on the subject matter. Judge Kaplan agreed with the DOJ in calling Wu’s proposed testimony “mere narration,” which could confuse and mislead the jury.
While Judge Kaplan barred SBF’s proposed witnesses, he denied the alleged fraudster’s motion to exclude the DOJ’s expert witness, Peter Easton, from testifying. He described SBF’s objections to the proposed witness as meritless, moot, and significantly narrow.
“Mr. Easton appropriately may testify about customer fiat deposits as described in his Rule 16 disclosure and the government’s papers. Mr. Easton’s anticipated testimony is the product of specialized knowledge and reliable methodology and does not constitute improper narration,” the judge said.