[ad_1]
Sam Bankman-Fried’s (SBF) attorneys have closely criticized the Division of Justice’s sentencing memorandum in a March 19 letter to Choose Lewis Kaplan.
Within the letter, the attorneys described the DOJ’s proposed most sentence of fifty years imprisonment for SBF as “disturbing” and “with marked hostility.”
Based on the attorneys:
“The memorandum distorts actuality to assist its treasured “loss” narrative and casts Sam as a wicked super-villain; it attributes to him darkish and megalomaniacal motives that fly within the face of the report; it makes apocalyptic prophecies of recidivism; and it adopts a medieval view of punishment to achieve what quantities to a death-in-prison sentencing advice.”
They additional argued that the federal government’s memorandum fully ignores SBF’s situation and vulnerabilities, including that the proposed sentencing was the federal government’s try and “break Sam Bankman-Fried” as there was no “federal defendant convicted of a non-violent offense who served a 40-50 12 months sentence and was launched.”
Lowered sentencing
SBF’s authorized workforce offered a sequence of arguments to advocate for a diminished sentence for him.
Firstly, they contended that there have been no tangible losses for the reason that chapter proceedings would guarantee full restitution to all prospects and lenders.
The attorneys wrote:
“There have been by no means losses. The cash has all the time been out there. Belongings stay. Every sufferer quoted within the authorities’s opposition will obtain 100 cents on the greenback — plus curiosity. This could be unimaginable if the property’s belongings had disappeared into Sam’s private pockets.”
Moreover, they rebutted the prosecution’s portrayal of Bankman-Fried as being motivated by greed. They highlighted his philanthropic endeavors, declaring that SBF had given his earnings away earlier than creating the failed crypto entities FTX and Alameda Analysis.
Furthermore, they challenged the federal government’s assertion that Bankman-Fried posed a big threat of re-offending, citing analysis indicating low charges of recidivism amongst white-collar, educated people with clear prior data.
“Offenders with no felony historical past, like Sam, are the least prone to re-offend. Nor does offense stage predict recidivism. And offenders with a school training are much less prone to recidivate,” they concluded.
As such, they proposed a diminished sentence of a most of 78 months, equal to six.5 years, for his or her consumer.
Talked about on this article
[ad_2]
Source link
