SBF Says He Is Not A Supervillain And Demands Amendments To His Punishment

Lawyers representing Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) have contested certain legal cases referenced by the U.S. government in its sentencing memo, advocating for a more lenient punishment for the former FTX CEO. A court filing on Wednesday highlighted this pushback.

The legal team representing SBF responded to the memo earlier in the week, asserting that the portrayal of their client as a supervillain was unfair. In another letter on Wednesday, the defense team critiqued some of the legal arguments put forth by the prosecution.

The Bargaining Continues

Having been convicted of fraud and conspiracy, Bankman-Fried faces sentencing on March 28th. His defense attorneys argue that a sentence of no more than 6.5 years is appropriate, noting that FTX creditors will recover their losses. Conversely, the United States DOJ is advocating for a sentence ranging from 40 to 50 years. A presentence investigation report recommended a sentence of 100 years, primarily due to the significant loss incurred at the time of the FTX bankruptcy, exceeding $8 billion.

A key contention revolves around the interpretation of a precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court case, Kisor Vs. Wilkie, particularly regarding whether punishment should be based on intended loss or actual loss, as outlined in the Wednesday filing. The government contends that SBF is attempting to align the sentencing court with the same definition of loss which was prevalent in the Kisor Vs. Wilkie case, and that this should be dismissed.

Defining Loss

The issue of the aforementioned loss pertains to the former FTX customers, now creditors of the bankrupt exchange. The bankruptcy team of the defunct exchange estimates that these customers may recover almost all of their assets partially due to recoveries secured over the past year and a half and the recent increase in crypto values.

Losses represent just one aspect Judge Lewis Kaplan must consider in determining the sentence. Other factors include trial evidence, character references, victim impact statements, and potential testimony during the upcoming sentencing hearing. The presentence report, recommending a 100-year sentence, is viewed as a guideline calculation rather than a definitive determination of an appropriate sentence.