SBF Trial – Jury begins deliberations as closing arguments conclude

The trial of Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) entered a pivotal phase on Nov. 3 as the prosecution delivered its final rebuttal to the defense’s closing argument before the jury began its deliberations for a verdict.

The jury has begun deliberations to reach a verdict by the end of the day, but it is unclear if they will be able to do so in such a short time.

Rebuttal

Assistant U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon, who is leading the prosecution on behalf of the government, began her argument by emphasizing the central allegation of fraud. She told the jury:

“Telling your customers to trust you with their money and then taking that money and spending it on yourself… that is not a reasonable business decision. That is fraud.”

The prosecution’s argument revolved around the notion that SBF had deceived FTX customers and acted improperly with their funds. Sassoon reiterated that the prosecution had embraced its burden and had met it convincingly, urging the jury to scrutinize the defense’s assertions closely.

The core of the prosecution’s case lay in demonstrating discrepancies between SBF’s public image and his private actions. While he projected himself as a legitimate business figure with ambitions of running for the presidency, behind the scenes, he was allegedly involved in questionable financial activities.

Sassoon highlighted the contradictions between the defendant’s public statements, tweets, and congressional testimony and his actual conduct, backed by evidence such as the asset management policy. Furthermore, she pointed to evidence of discrepancies in financial statements.

The government’s case heavily relied on the testimony of cooperating witnesses who provided critical insights into SBF’s spending habits and financial decisions. Sassoon underscored the consistency of the cooperators’ statements as they were part of SBF’s inner circle and refuted claims that they were not truthful.

In her closing statements, Sassoon maintained that even if the jury were to accept the defendant’s testimony, he would still be guilty of fraud. She argued that SBF was the central figure in the alleged fraudulent activities, a point that the prosecution contended was supported by substantial evidence.

Sassoon firmly stated: