Effective Altruism No Shield in Sam Bankman-Fried's Case

The prosecutors in the fraud trial of Sam Bankman-Fried have asked the judge to instruct the jury that his claim of being an effective altruist is not a valid defense. Bankman-Fried stands accused of stealing billions of dollars from FTX customers and using them for personal gain, including political donations, real estate, and investments.

In a letter submitted on Thursday, prosecutors highlighted that Bankman-Fried’s legal team attempted to argue that he didn’t commit fraud because he intended to repay customers through various means such as expanding FTX or making profitable investments. They said that this argument is irrelevant and does not negate the fraud charges.

Bankman-Fried’s defense team has attempted to present him as a philanthropist driven by a genuine desire to make a positive impact on the world. They argue that his support of effective altruism, a philosophical movement advocating for the most impactful ways to help others, like charitable donations or pursuing impactful careers, reveals his motivations.

Prosecutors assert that effective altruism offers no defense to fraud. They describes it as an “idiosyncratic philosophy about the morality of lying and stealing.” According to them, this ideology bears no relation to mens rea or the mental state required for committing fraud.

Trial Witnesses

The letter came as the prosecution wrapped up its third week of presenting its case against Bankman-Fried. Throughout the trial, the prosecution has presented various witnesses, including Caroline Ellison, former CEO of Alameda Research; Nishad Singh, former engineering chief of FTX and Alameda; and Gary Wang, a co-founder of the defunct FTX.

All three individuals testified against Bankman-Fried as part of plea deals. According to their testimonies, Bankman-Fried instructed them to borrow money from FTX customers without their knowledge or consent for purposes unrelated to FTX’s operations.

They also state that Bankman-Fried was aware of the risks and consequences of his actions. Furthermore, they claimed that he actively attempted to conceal these from regulators, auditors, and the general public. As proof, they presented a collection of emails, messages, spreadsheets, and bank statements that shed light on the extent of Bankman-Fried’s deceptive scheme.

Wrapping Up Jury Instructions Debate

The defense team has presented their own jury instructions. These instructions differ from those given by the prosecutors in various ways. For instance, they have requested that the judge inform the jury about Bankman-Fried’s good faith and lack of intention to defraud anyone.

Furthermore, they have raised concerns regarding jurisdiction and the validity of certain charges. Judge Lewis Kaplan holds the discretion to choose one proposal or find a middle ground for instructing the jury. It is anticipated that finalizing the jury instructions will occur next week, followed by closing arguments. Subsequently, the jury will conduct deliberations and determine Bankman-Fried’s fate.