Prosecutors Consider Dropping Charges Against FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried Based on Bahamas Response

Context of the Case

In the ongoing saga of crypto drama, former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) finds himself at a legal crossroads. On May 29, a document surfaced from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, revealing that prosecutors may drop some charges against SBF if the Bahamas government raises an objection. Talk about a cliffhanger!

The Charges in Question

Initially, SBF was hit with a laundry list of charges. However, the defense team’s recent motion on May 8 claimed four charges—specifically those involving alleged bribery of Chinese officials and violations of campaign finance laws—should vanish into thin air. They argued these charges weren’t included in his original indictment, and therefore, violate the extradition treaty with the Bahamas. Whose lawyer needs to earn a raise for that argument?

Legal Arguments Brewing

Prosecutors, with their legalese at the ready, have countered that the extradition treaty doesn’t throw a wrench into U.S. prosecutors’ plans to throw additional charges at SBF after he’s been extradited. The catch? They can’t “detain, try, or punish” him for these extra charges without the Bahamian thumbs-up. They’re currently on the quest for what they call a specialty waiver to proceed with three of the four charges—get ready for some paperwork involved!

Charges That Need Approval

• Conspiracy to commit bank fraud (Count 9)
• Conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money-transmitting business (Count 10)
• Conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (Count 13)

If the Bahamas decides to sit this one out and doesn’t approve the waiver, these charges will get the boot. At least it’s nice to know that even in legal matters, one can hope for friendly cooperation.

Campaign Finance Charge: Not So Easy to Dismiss

The other charge, dealing with illegal campaign contributions, is a bit stickier. According to prosecutors, it was part of the original indictment and doesn’t require any Bahamian blessings. SBF’s defense attorneys argued it wasn’t on the surrender warrant’s “Schedule of Charges.” However, the prosecution retorted that this charge was buried in the diplomatic note, which SBF allegedly agreed upon in court. Sounds like a classic case of “who reads the fine print?”

What’s Next for Bankman-Fried?

As the plot thickens, Bankman-Fried’s team seems to be in a tightening vice, with prosecutors saying he lacks standing to dispute the treaty violations. Apparently, only the Bahamas has that right. If that doesn’t add salt to the wound!

Mark your calendars: a hearing on this contentious motion is slated for June 15. With the stakes higher than ever, will Bankman-Fried find himself dodging legal grenades, or will the Bahamas pull a power move? Only time will tell, but it’s bound to be a wild ride!