On Tuesday, U.S. district judge Lewis Kaplan rejected Sam Bankman-Fried’s attempt to dismiss criminal charges against him. Bankman-Fried claims he was charged in a manner that violates the “rule of specialty” as far as the extradition treaty between the Bahamas and the United States is concerned.
Judge Throws Out Bankman-Fried’s Motion to Dismiss
Disgraced FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried’s (SBF) attempt to dismiss criminal charges against him has been rejected by U.S. district judge Lewis Kaplan on June 27, 2023. SBF moved to dismiss the post-extradition charges (counts 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13) because his legal team believes he was charged in a manner that violates the “rule of specialty.”
Essentially, SBF claimed that the extradition process from the Bahamas to the United States did not adhere to the rule of specialty because he was being charged with additional offenses beyond those specified in the extradition request.
SBF’s legal team insisted that the United States exceeded the initial agreement’s scope by bringing forth charges that were not part of the extradition arrangement. Judge Kaplan determined that the charges brought against Bankman-Fried were within the permissible scope of the extradition treaty.
As a result, the judge rejected Bankman-Fried’s attempt to dismiss the criminal charges, indicating that he would have to face trial for the offenses specified in the extradition process.
Kaplan said the charges are “joined properly with the other pre-extradition charges in this case because a common scheme unifies them.” The common scheme was to “accelerate the growth of FTX and Alameda and to enrich the defendant thereby,” the court filing details.
Interestingly, SBF attempted to get counts 1 and 2 dismissed which include the charges of “conspiring to commit and committing wire fraud on FTX customers.” SBF contends that these charges should be dropped since the indictment fails to mention any “financial harm” inflicted upon FTX customers. Kaplan disagrees and states:
The defendant is wrong both factually and as a matter of law.
A great deal of SBF’s arguments leverage the language written in the indictments and jurisdiction gray areas to justify the dismissal of the charges against him. Yet the judge details on numerous occasions that the defendant’s arguments are “unpersuasive” and the counts against SBF “are legally sufficient.”
Kaplan opined that the dismissal arguments are “either moot or without merit” and for those reasons, the motion to dismiss is denied. “Accordingly, the motion to dismiss for improper venue is denied without prejudice to renewal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29,” the judge concluded.
What are your thoughts on Judge Kaplan’s decision and the arguments presented by Sam Bankman-Fried’s defense team? Share your views and opinions about this subject in the comments section below.
