paint-brush
USA v. Sam Bankman-Fried: Fraud, Bribery, and the Road to Justiceby@legalpdf

USA v. Sam Bankman-Fried: Fraud, Bribery, and the Road to Justice

by Legal PDF: Tech Court CasesMarch 19th, 2024
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

The court filing in USA v. Samuel Bankman-Fried details charges including fraud, bribery, obstruction of justice, and more. It outlines sentencing guidelines, restitution, and forfeiture, providing a comprehensive overview of the case against Bankman-Fried.
featured image - USA v. Sam Bankman-Fried: Fraud, Bribery, and the Road to Justice
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases HackerNoon profile picture

USA v. Samuel Bankman-Fried Court Filing, retrieved on March 15, 2024 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This is the table of links with all parts.


Case Number: 1:22-cr-00673-LAK

Plaintiffs: United States of America

Defendant: Samuel Bankman-Fried

Filing Date: March 15, 2024

Location: United States District Court Southern District of New York

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

BACKGROUND

I. The Offense Conduct Proven at Trial

A. Fraud on FTX Customers

B. Fraud on FTX Investors

C. Fraud on Alameda’s Lenders

II. The Defendant’s Scheme to Make Unlawful Political Contributions

III. The Defendant’s Scheme to Bribe Chinese Government Officials

IV. The Defendant’s Banking Misconduct

V. The Defendant Tried to Deflect Blame and Evade Responsibility After FTX Declared Bankruptcy

VI. The Defendant Obstructed Justice

A. Use of Signal to Auto-Delete Messages

B. The Defendant’s Witness Tampering

C. The Defendant’s Perjury


APPLICATION OF THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES

I. Calculation of the Applicable Sentencing Guidelines

II. The Defendant’s Challenges to the Guidelines Calculation Lack Merit

A. The Evidence at Trial Proved That the Loss Amounts Is at Least $10 Billion

B. The Number of Victims Enhancement Is Applicable

C. The Bankruptcy Fraud Enhancement Is Applicable

D. The “Relocating,” “Outside the United States,” or “Sophisticated Means” Enhancement Applies

E. The Enhancement for Deriving More Than $ Million in Gross Receipts From a Financial Institution Is Applicable

F. The Enhancement for Abuse of Trust Is Applicable

G. The Enhancement for Obstruction of Justice Is Warranted

III. The Guidelines Do Not Overstate the Seriousness of the Offense


A SENTENCE OF 40 TO 50 YEARS’ IMPRISONMENT IS NECESSARY

I. The Nature, Circumstances, and Seriousness of the Offense Warrant a Very Significant Sentence

II. A Sentence of 40 to 50 Years Is Necessary to Protect the Public and for Specific Deterrence

III. A Very Significant Sentence Is Necessary for General Deterrence

IV. The Defendant’s History and Characteristics Do Not Warrant a Significant Variance

V. A Sentence of 40 to 50 Years Is Necessary to Avoid Sentencing Disparities


RESTITUTION AND FORFEITURE

I. Applicable Law

II. The Court Should Order Forfeiture

III. The Court Should Order Victim Compensation Through Remission as an Alternative to Restitution


CONCLUSION




About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.


This court case retrieved on March 15, 2024, from storage.courtlistener 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.