The US government has finally responded to Sam Bankman-Fried’s (SBF) appeal, stating that the initial conviction and forfeiture order against the former CEO of the bankrupt exchange should be affirmed. In its response, the government responded to all the arguments raised in SBF’s appeal.

The U.S. team, led by U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Damian Williams, filed the response on December 13. They noted that the district court made the right decisions throughout the trial and was not biased against SBF, as the previous one had. The CEO had claimed.

To prove this point, they argued that the court was correct in directing the jury to consider fraudulent intent, as there was overwhelming evidence of it at trial.

According to government counsel, Bankman-Fried intended to cause loss to the victims, and none of the trial court's instructions wrongly influenced the jury to convict him of that intent to cause loss.

They wrote:

“(The) loss to the victim was not an ‘accident dent to the scheme,’” Kelly, 590 U.S. at 402 — “obtaining the victims’ property was the primary goal of Bankman-Fried’s deception.”

Accordingly, the government alleged that the court's instructions to the jury to ignore SBF's "no harm absolute" defense at trial were correct.

At trial, SBF said the instruction was unnecessary but later argued on appeal that it was an erroneous statement of law. However, the U.S. attorney argues that standard instructions in fraud trials, temporarily depriving someone of their property for personal gain, are sufficient to constitute a scheme to defraud.

Meanwhile, part of SBF’s arguments on appeal were based on what it believed was the wrongful exclusion of evidence that could have helped its case by the trial judge. Unsurprisingly, the government focused on refuting these arguments, noting that the judge was right.

During the trial, the judge ruled that the evidence SBF could present should be limited to showing that it acted in good faith. In its attempt to prove this, SBF wanted to present evidence that its investments in FTX funds were strategic, that it had repaid debts to clients and creditors, and that its decisions were based on legal advice.

However, the trial judge limited the evidence he could present, sometimes making him present evidence without the jury, stating that it was not specific and that some of it might mislead the jury. SBF argued in its appeal that these restrictions destroyed its case.

In its response, the government argued that its own evidence of losses incurred due to SBF’s actions was relevant, and even if the former CEO presented evidence that he was able to repay, it would not exonerate him of the crime. It added that the court was correct in ordering the criminal confiscation of $11 billion against SBF, as the money was obtained through fraud, and the size of the confiscation was proportionate to the seriousness of the action.

With the US government now filing its response to the appeal, it is up to SBF to respond to the counterarguments raised, and it has until January 31 to do so. However, whether the convicted CEO, who is currently serving his 25-year sentence, will win the appeal remains in doubt.

The crux of his appeal was that he did not receive a fair trial and that prosecutors and judges involved in his case presumed him guilty. However, many legal experts believe that the appeals court is unlikely to grant a retrial, especially if the appellant cannot prove that the lower court acted improperly.

Meanwhile, FTX is already planning to reimburse customers, with 98% of customers likely to receive their refunds within the next three months. However, they will receive their money in November 2022, despite prices having more than tripled since then.