The Department of Justice wants to exclude FTX founder’s expert witnesses from testifying

Prosecutors said in a filing late Monday that all witnesses proposed by Sam Bankman-Fried, founder of FTX, should be excluded from testifying because their disclosure files are inadequate, their expertise may be misleading or their testimony may not be relevant. Planned related.

The Bankman Fried team, for its part, wants to disqualify the financial analysis expert proposed by the Department of Justice because his proposed certification may not be permissible under the rules. Deposits, part of the so-called Dupert’s movements Scheduled for Monday, it offered both teams’ perspectives on why their opposition couldn’t call some witnesses to the stand when Fred Bankman goes on trial for fraud and conspiracy in just over a month.

Ministry of Justice Proceed to exclude all seven expert witnesses Bankman-Fried’s team suggested, saying some of the disclosures they made did not include details of their opinions, while others were “inappropriate topics for expert testimony” or perhaps confusing to a potential jury.

The witnesses are Lawrence Acre, a British barrister. Thomas Bishop and Joseph Pembley, who work for various consulting firms; Brian Kim, data analytics and forensic expert; Bradley Smith, Professor of Law at Capital University College of Law and Andrew D. Wu, Associate Professor at the University of Michigan.

The Justice Department said Acre’s testimony should be withheld because his proposed opinion would speak to the definition of a “trust” under the law, which is the role of a judge. Furthermore, its definition seemed to be limited to one example.

Neither Kim nor Bishop’s disclosures share details about what they will actually testify to beyond general topics, which is not permitted, the filing added.

See also  Exclusive: Customers Say Binance Has Served Crypto Traders in Iran Despite US Sanctions

The prosecution file stated that Smith’s testimony was not necessary because the Department of Justice did not charge a campaign finance charge, which is what the professor could have been talking about. Smith should also be prevented, because his proposed testimony, like Acre, would attempt to explain the law to a jury.

The Justice Department said Pembley’s proposed certification as an expert who could talk to FTX code was “unnecessary.”

“At trial, the government will call at least two witnesses — Gary Wang and Nishad Singh — who were involved in writing the FTX code. “They are ordinary witnesses who are qualified to testify about the law, and the defendant’s relevant and acceptable questions about the law can be put to these witnesses during cross-examination.” “There is no need for a separate ‘expert’ witness to testify in such matters, especially in light of the fact that such testimony would duplicate the testimony of witnesses to the facts.”

Another proposed witness, Peter Fenella, was presented in the filing as an expert in the financial services industry but did not appear to have “sufficient experience or expertise” in the cryptocurrency industry. The Justice Department said Wu will similarly testify about blockchain and the cryptocurrency industry in general, but that this “testimony is not relevant to the issues disputed at trial.”

The filing added that some of Wu’s planned testimonials — for example, detailing common practices around cryptocurrency lending — were “inappropriate.”

Some witnesses disclosed their testimonial fees, as compensation for time and services. per hour, Acre The bill is £800 ($1,010), bishop 400 dollars, Kim $650, pimpli $720, Smith 1200 dollars and Woo $650. Discovery of vinyl He said that his fees do not depend on the outcome of the case, but he did not specify what those fees were.

See also  Cineworld drops major sale plan, proposes new debt deal

The defense team said in a statement that Peter Easton, a professor of accounting at the University of Notre Dame, is a proposed witness for the prosecution and should be barred from testifying because he has not provided a basis for his testimony and his planned opinions may not be admissible. its deposit.

“Many of Professor Easton’s opinions simply recount government allegations without clear expert analysis to assist the jury,” the filing reads.

The filing noted the proposed testimony dealing with FTX’s internal accounting and deposit system, how FTX funds were mixed with Alameda’s funds, and other details associated with the movement of FTX and its clients’ funds.

“The government should be required to substantiate its factual version by providing admissible documentary evidence and testimony from co-witnesses, not by substituting an expert witness who has no direct knowledge of the facts at issue and who does not provide expert analysis to help the jury understand,” the filing said.

Easton He is associated with Brattle Group, a consulting firm, which charges $1,175 an hour for his degree.

Prior to this hearing, defense attorney Christian Everdale I submitted another message On Monday he complained that the Justice Department had produced 3.7 million pages of documents earlier Monday, on top of another 4 million pages produced last Thursday.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *