[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.”
In keeping with the attorneys:
“The memorandum distorts actuality to assist its valuable “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 document; it makes apocalyptic prophecies of recidivism; and it adopts a medieval view of punishment to achieve what quantities to a death-in-prison sentencing suggestion.”
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 yr sentence and was launched.”
Decreased sentencing
SBF’s authorized workforce offered a sequence of arguments to advocate for a lowered 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 at all times been out there. Property stay. Every sufferer quoted within the authorities’s opposition will obtain 100 cents on the greenback — plus curiosity. This may be not possible if the property’s property 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, mentioning 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 information.
“Offenders with no felony historical past, like Sam, are the least prone to re-offend. Nor does offense degree predict recidivism. And offenders with a university schooling are much less prone to recidivate,” they concluded.
As such, they proposed a lowered 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