Judge Denies Sam Bankman-Fried Request for a Longer Sentencing Process

CoinDeskPolicy2023-12-19 tarihinde yayınlandı2023-12-20 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

Bankman-Fried's defense team asked for a four to six week extension for his sentencing scheduled in late March, citing a possible second trial that may begin earlier in the mo...

A federal judge denied onetime FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried's request to extend his sentencing process and delay a presentencing interview with the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services System, which will recommend a sentence.

Attorneys for Bankman-Fried filed a letter Wednesday requesting the extension, saying he faces a possible second trial on additional charges set for March 11. The sentencing hearing is scheduled for March 28. They also asked that a presentence interview scheduled for Thursday be delayed, alongside other deadlines.

7.1K

"We submit that Mr. Bankman-Fried should not begin the sentencing process on the counts of conviction, including the presentence interview, until the severed counts are resolved," the letter said. "Doing so could potentially result in a separate PSR and a separate sentencing hearing on conduct that was already part of the Government’s proof at trial."

Advertisement
Advertisement

Bankman-Fried was convicted on seven charges of fraud and conspiracy last month, after prosecutors alleged he misappropriated FTX customer and investor funds, as well as Alameda Research's lenders' funds.

District Judge Lewis Kaplan, the Southern District of New York judge overseeing the case, denied the motion, saying that the defense did not object when the March 28 date was originally set.

If the Department of Justice does choose to proceed to a second trial on bank fraud and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act conspiracy charges, sentencing could be delayed, the judge said.

"The defendant already has had over six weeks in which to prepare for the presentence interview, which shall take place tomorrow as scheduled," he wrote.

Edited by Sheldon Reback.

İlgili Okumalar

Why Is No One Buying DeFi Insurance?

"Why DeFi Insurance Remains Unpurchased" explores the paradox of decentralized finance insurance. While DeFi insurance promises automatic, unbiased payouts via smart contracts—eliminating traditional insurers' denial practices—it struggles to attract users. The core issue is economic viability. Premiums are prohibitively high relative to the yields from DeFi protocols. For example, insuring a deposit on Aave or Maple Finance can consume most or even all of the annual yield, leaving returns comparable to or worse than traditional savings. Only the safest protocols, like MakerDAO, offer affordable premiums. Furthermore, the DeFi insurance model is structurally fragile. Unlike traditional insurance where risks are uncorrelated, DeFi risks are highly interconnected (e.g., oracle failures, bridge hacks). A single major exploit can simultaneously threaten multiple protocols, potentially bankrupting the entire insurance pool, which holds only millions against billions in total value locked. The governance model also creates a conflict of interest. In platforms like Nexus Mutual, token holders who vote on claims risk their own capital if payouts are approved, incentivizing denials. Consequently, the market is tiny and shrinking. Nexus Mutual dominates with $81.56 million in assets, but the industry lacks the capacity to cover a catastrophic event like the $292M Kelp DAO hack. Other providers have dwindled or shut down. The article concludes that DeFi insurance faces a "tragedy of the commons": its stability requires widespread adoption, but individual users have no incentive to pay for it, as premiums destroy their yields. Current solutions involve preventative measures like bug bounties and seeking external capital from traditional reinsurance, acknowledging that on-chain capital alone is insufficient to cover on-chain risks.

marsbit2 saat önce

Why Is No One Buying DeFi Insurance?

marsbit2 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
活动图片