Defense attorney Mark Cohen emphasizes that Bankman-Fried is not a monster, but rather a person who made mistakes while genuinely acting in good faith.
The SBF trial is reaching its conclusion as both sides delivered their closing arguments this Wednesday.
On the other hand, the prosecution attorney, Nicolas Roos, contends that Bankman-Fried should be found guilty of fraud and conspiracy.
SBF is currently charged with seven counts of fraud and conspiracy, potentially leading to a maximum prison sentence of 115 years if convicted by the jury.
In a surprising turn of events, Bankman-Fried's defense attorney, Mark Cohen, has portrayed his client in a much different light than the government did during the trial. Cohen argued that Bankman-Fried should not be labeled a "monster" as the prosecution suggested but rather seen as a "mistake-maker" who acted in good faith.
Cohen's defense centered on the idea that Bankman-Fried's actions, while not flawless, were not driven by fraudulent intent. According to Cohen, SBF's only missteps were honest errors, not criminal acts.
During the trial, Cohen humanized the FTX founder by sharing childhood photos of him with former President Bill Clinton and another of Bankman-Fried sleeping on a private jet. He even critiqued the government's trivial attacks on his client's appearance, arguing that being "the worst-dressed CEO in the world" should not constitute a crime.
In his defense, Cohen also highlighted Bankman-Fried's openness and approachability. He emphasized that SBF was always accessible and willing to engage with the media, bloggers, and journalists.
Furthermore, Cohen raised questions about the credibility of the government's witnesses, including Bankman-Fried's former girlfriend, Carloline Ellison, Nishad Singh, and Gary Wang. He asked why these individuals continued to associate with SBF if they believed he was truly "terrible."
Cohen countered the prosecution's argument that Bankman-Fried's card shuffling was a sign of gambling, asserting that it was merely a coping mechanism for fidgetiness. He reiterated that "good faith is a complete defense" and that mistakes should not be treated as crimes.
The defense also underlined the challenges of the cryptocurrency industry and the volatility of its markets.
In contrast, the prosecution's closing arguments painted a different picture. Assistant United States Attorney Nicolas Roos aimed to convince the jury that Bankman-Fried was indeed guilty of fraud and conspiracy. According to Roos, SBF's actions amounted to "stealing" and presented evidence that demonstrated deceit, fund mishandling, and lies.
Roos alleged that Bankman-Fried had set up two methods to embezzle funds from FTX, one through an unlimited cash account at Alameda and another through political contributions made with customer funds. He relied on the testimonies of cooperators who admitted their involvement in the scheme and contended that believing Ellison, Singh, or Wang would lead to a guilty verdict for SBF.
As the trial concludes, a jury of 12 will ultimately decide Bankman-Fried's fate. If convicted, the 31-year-old entrepreneur faces seven counts of fraud and conspiracy, potentially resulting in a staggering 115 years in prison.
The trial has garnered significant attention within the crypto community due to FTX/Alameda's substantial presence before their downfall, with over $25 billion in valuation and $2 billion in assets under management. The prosecution has presented substantial evidence, including testimony from law enforcement officers involved in the investigation, making it a challenging task for SBF's defense to sway the jury in his favor.
