Ahead of his October trial for multiple financial crimes, FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried’s bail was revoked and he was sent to jail. This decision was made by a federal judge who revoked his bond release on Friday. The judge expressed concerns that Bankman-Fried, a former crypto industry heavyweight, had attempted to interfere with witnesses, leading to the decision to detain him, media reports said.
Judge Lewis Kaplan from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York stated that Bankman-Fried seemed willing to push boundaries and engage in questionable behavior.
The judge’s assessment was that there was a likelihood that Bankman-Fried might cross lines that would jeopardize the trial process. Consequently, the judge decided to revoke bail, emphasizing that there was probable cause to believe that Bankman-Fried had made attempts to tamper with witnesses on two occasions.
This, in the judge’s view, indicated that no set of conditions could ensure that Bankman-Fried wouldn’t pose a danger.
The 31-year-old former CEO of FTX, Bankman-Fried, appeared in court following allegations made by the U.S. Department of Justice that he had violated the terms of his bail by attempting to tamper with witnesses.
The DOJ cited instances where Bankman-Fried had contacted former FTX.US general counsel Ryne Miller and had used a virtual private network (VPN) to access content, including watching the Super Bowl. Bankman-Fried’s defense team argued that these actions were not indicative of tampering.
However, the situation escalated when Bankman-Fried shared excerpts from former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison’s private diary with the New York Times.
Judge Kaplan highlighted both the attempts to contact former FTX employees and the sharing of the diary as reasons for his decision to detain Bankman-Fried. Although the use of a VPN alone might not be significant, it provided insight into Bankman-Fried’s mindset, according to the judge.
Bankman-Fried’s defense team acknowledged that he had shared diary pages with the Times, but they disputed any intention of witness tampering. Despite their arguments, Judge Kaplan remained unconvinced by the defense’s stance.
