UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SAMUEL BANKMAN-FRIED Court Filing Lewis A. Kaplan, December 9, 2022 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 9 of 25. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here PRELIMINARY STATEMENT II. BACKGROUND TO ALL MOTIONS H. The New Charges Were Improperly Brought Yet almost as soon as he arrived this country, the Government sought to proceed against Mr. Bankman-Fried on all eight charges in the Original Indictment, even though the Warrant of Surrender had not specified the campaign finance charge. The Government also added new charges that alleged criminal conduct far beyond the Original Indictment and which are improperly brought. As noted in the motions, even if they are considered, the charges should be dismissed as legally flawed. Further, the Court should order the Government to provide the defense with the requested discovery and particulars. In sum, Mr. Bankman-Fried is here to fight these baseless charges and clear his name. For these reasons, we respectfully make the following motions: Pretrial Motion No. 1: Motion to dismiss Counts 9-10 and 12-13 based on violation of the rule of specialty. Mr. Bankman-Fried agreed to simplified extradition, reserving his rights under the rule of specialty. The rule of specialty has been violated because Count 12 was not included in the Warrant of Surrender and Counts 9-10 and 13 were impermissibly added post-extradition; Pretrial Motion No. 2: Motion to dismiss Counts 7-9 and 1-2 based on invalidity of the “right to control” theory of property fraud and because the S5 Indictment does not identify a valid property interest that Mr. Bankman-Fried obtained from Alameda’s lenders or from FTX’s customers in violation of the wire fraud statute; Pretrial Motion No. 3: Motion to dismiss Counts 3-4 and 10 for failure to state an offense. The commodities fraud charges allege facts occurring almost entirely outside the United States and fail to allege the required “connection with” regulated sales or transactions. The unlicensed money transmitting charge fails because FTX was not required to register as a money services business solely for using a U.S. bank account; Pretrial Motion No. 4: Motion to dismiss, or in the alternative sever, Counts 12 and 13. The S5 Indictment does not properly allege illegal campaign contributions or payments to Chinese officials to “obtain[ ] or retain[ ] business,” and fails to establish venue for Count 13; Pretrial Motion No. 5: Motion to compel additional discovery, including Rule 16, Brady, Giglio and Jencks Act materials, from the FTX Debtors on the basis that they are part of the “prosecution team”; Pretrial Motion No. 6: Motion for a bill of particulars and early disclosure of Brady, Giglio, and Jencks Act materials, a list of Government witnesses, and accelerated disclosure of FRE 404(b) evidence; and Pretrial Motion No. 7: Motion to dismiss multiplicitous counts. Counts 1 and 9, and Counts 3 and 1, are the same in fact and law. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case S5 22 Cr. 673 (LAK) retrieved on September 1, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Storage.Courtlistener

The US Government Improperly Added New Charges Against SBF After His Extradition to the US

Too Long; Didn't Read

People Mentioned

@legalpdf

RELATED STORIES