A criminal trial scheduled for October is the first in the order of business for former FTX Exchange CEO and founder Sam Bankman-Fried. Prosecutors recently asked that other civil cases involving him be postponed until after the criminal trial.
Interestingly, New York Judge Kevin Castel granted their request. This means that the civil proceedings against Sam Bankman-Fried by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) will now have to wait.
According to court documents, U.S. Attorney Damian Williams requested the postponement of other cases to save time and resources on February 7. And rightly so, given that the outcome of the criminal case will most likely have “an impact on the issues that will ultimately be litigated in the civil cases.“
Another reason cited by Damian Williams is that the former CEO may have access to information during these other cases. This, he says, could give SBF an advantage in the criminal trial. Part of the document says that Sam Bankman-Fried can :
“Improperly obtain impeachment material regarding government witnesses, circumvent the rules of criminal discovery, and improperly tailor his defense in the criminal case.”
Sam Bankman-Fried allegedly attempted to influence the witnesses’accounts
Meanwhile, a recent court ruling suggests that SBF may have engaged in witness tampering. As previously reported by Coinspeaker, the founder of FTX has been barred from communicating with anyone. This includes former and new employees of the exchange. Shortly after the ban, his legal team also negotiated a deal to allow SBF to use unidentified encrypted applications to communicate. But although they said the communication would be strictly supervised, their negotiation was unsuccessful. That’s because Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York simply believes otherwise. As part of SBF’s bail conditions, Judge Kaplan insists that he cannot use any encrypted messaging application until February 21.
The judge’s rule indicates that the court is more concerned with completing this case than seeking any form of convenience for SBF.