FTX’s Bankman-Fried: A Second Circuit Chance or Sixth-Form Calamity?

by

What to know:

  • Sam Bankman-Fried’s legal squad is set to parley for a retrial with the appeals court, albeit facing quite the pickle.
  • Legal aficionados tell CoinDesk that to budge a judge, one must demonstrate glaring blunders or blatant bias-oh, the drama!
  • The panel, while not deciding post haste, might drop hints through pointed questions and the length at which they entertain the hearing.

The once-great empire of FTX, much like Jeeves after a particularly grueling at-home job, is on the brink of collapse-or perhaps a hopeful rebound. Sam Bankman-Fried’s legal tumbleweed is about to drift into its potential endgame. Next week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals will mull over arguments from Bankman-Fried’s legal eagles who hope to appeal that oh-so-ominous conviction and a quarter-century’s worth of prison time.

On November 4th, with the solemnity of a Garkane affair, both the prosecution and defense will have their ten minutes to charm the judges. The appellants hope for a jamboree they could call “A Retrial with a New Judge, if We’re Lucky”. The defense maintains that Judge Kaplan, with a hand possibly too heavy on skepticism, sowed seeds of uncertainty during the trial’s proceedings.

Bankman-Fried’s Path to What One Hopes isn’t Just Absurdity

Bankman-Fried’s loyal band of attorneys must persuade the court that the district court made a most foul blunder. Allegedly, they submit that Judge Kaplan’s tour de force was biased right from le pavillon d’hiver! Yelderman suggests that with over 3,000 pages of transcript, the prosecution might unearth their own sympathetic critiques of the judge.

Appellate courts, much like Bertie’s Uncle Fred, often bake their cakes and eat them too, remaining unusually reticent to question how a trial court conducts its proceedings, especially in such a Byzantine case.

Interesting too is the so-called “dry run,” where the dear judge insisted on playing audience to defense conjurations before the formal theatrical. Fischers and Auerbach both hint that appellate minds might question whether this unscheduled foray granted the prosecution an unwarranted encore.

Victim Losses: An Evening of Mysteries Solved by the Supreme Court

Before the plot thickens further, the Supreme Court, in its magisterial wisdom, has ruled on a precedent, much to the disbelief of Bankman-Fried’s advocates. Mislead to procure funds, regardless of intentions, confirms the smears of fraud.

Bankman-Fried’s team fumbled at the ball here, unable to argue about eventual repayment. A delightfully clear message was sent: “To swindle, you need only the impulse to misappropriate treasure; repayment is irrelevant post factum.” As Auerbach dryly notes, “So the plan was banking, probity is not optional during my adventures. A few steps behind the times, aren’t we?”

The Appeals Process: Lengthy or Swift? A Tale as Old as Time

Lenient lunches at the courthouse might foreshadow concern, according to our trio of attorneys. Fischers hints at brief hearings being an iron-gloved sign of affirmation. In contrast, a pedantic judge delving too deeply could hint at schema worthy of Bertram Wooster.

Chances of a Pardon: A High Hopes-and-Photoshop Scenario

If this berry fails, there’s still the hope of a pardon. But despite Bankman-Fried’s previous cozying up to political behemoths and his attempts in the media field, he seems a candidate destined to trot up many a legal hill unsuccessfully. Lest we forget, the former President pardoned several in the crypto realm, but alas, perhaps Bankman-Fried’s rich holiday donations to the Democrats might keep the gate closed.

Closing this comedic tale: A document titled “Where Did the Money Go?” appeared on social circles like an anachronistic hero in his gladiator attire-one cannot shake the suspicion that this dramatic reprise of events will remain, akin to our ever-dutiful Jeeves, merely a delightful possibility.

Read More

2025-11-02 17:27