FTX founder SBF appeals against the presiding judge! Exclusive verbatim transcript of the scene.

SBF, the founder of FTX, appeared in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York on November 4 to appeal his fraud conviction. SBF stated that if he could have secured more time back then, FTX could have repaid all customer funds. However, this claim was repeatedly questioned by the judge in court. According to several observers present, the judges did not accept SBF's reasons for a retrial, maintaining a cold attitude throughout the hearing with continuous skepticism.

All seven charges have been established, and SBF is appealing the judgment defiantly.

SBF was found guilty on all seven charges by a New York federal jury in November 2023, including defrauding customers, lenders, and investors. Prosecutors stated that he misappropriated up to $8 billion of FTX customer funds through his hedge fund Alameda Research for investments and political donations. Ultimately, SBF was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

Subsequently, in September 2024, SBF's defense attorney Alexandra Shapiro filed a motion for reconsideration with the appellate court, alleging that presiding judge Lewis Kaplan improperly prevented the defense from presenting certain evidence. The legal team argued that SBF's actions were made in good faith based on the advice of his attorney, but the judge limited the presentation of such evidence at the time, preventing the jury from fully understanding the legal basis behind his decision-making.

The appeal hearing is underway, and the judge expressed doubts on the spot.

At the hearing in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, SBF's lawyer Shapiro reiterated that if the company is given more time, all FTX customers will eventually receive full compensation. However, according to courtroom reports from Inner City Press, the judges were not receptive to this claim. Among them, Judge Barrington Parker Jr. bluntly stated:

“It seems that you are spending too much time criticizing Judge Kaplan instead of discussing the key points of the case.”

( Note: Inner City Press is an independent media organization based in New York, USA, founded by journalist Matthew Lee. This media outlet is known for reporting on the United Nations, Wall Street financial cases, and the American judicial process, particularly excelling in live courtroom broadcasting and verbatim recording. )

SBF argued that his actions were based on the advice of his lawyer, but the judge retorted that it was contradictory.

SBF's defense attorney Shapiro argued from the outset that, according to the documents from the bankruptcy administrator, FTX still had considerable assets at the time and was not truly bankrupt. However, the judge immediately countered:

“The issue is that your incorrect statement is about 'liquidity', not assets.”

When Shapiro tried to interject and was interrupted again, the judge coldly stated, “Let me finish asking the question first.” The tense atmosphere continued into the defense's subsequent arguments. Shapiro then claimed that SBF's decisions involved lawyers and were acts of good faith, but Judge Parker retorted:

“Hiring a lawyer means having good intentions?”

In the first trial, SBF himself stated, “I am not using 'the lawyer said it was okay to do this' as a defense argument.” Therefore, the judge questioned that since he denied using “legal advice” as a defense at that time, it seems contradictory to now appeal by claiming that there was a lawyer present and that it was a good faith action. Even though Shapiro cited precedents, the judge still did not accept it.

SBF claims that the liquidity issue is not a fraud, and the judge further inquires, “Where is the objection?”

The judge then asked, “You didn't raise any objections to the exclusion of testimony, did you?” Shapiro countered, “We protested!” and cited record page numbers A-554, 569. However, the judge replied, “Judge Kaplan was just as confused as we are; do you want to assert a lawyer's defense or not?”

The judge further inquired about the losses incurred by FTX customers, and Shapiro emphasized that this was merely a liquidity issue, and that given more time, customers would be able to retrieve their funds. The judge coldly responded: “Whether the victims can get their money back cannot serve as a defense for acquittal.”

Finally, when Shapiro was asked by the judge about the “1.1 billion dollars,” Shapiro replied, “We have a lot of arguments.” The judge pressed further, “Then give me the best one.” Shapiro responded, “They are all good.” Laughter erupted in the courtroom.

The prosecution indicated that the funds were misappropriated, and the case has been submitted to the collegiate bench for deliberation.

U.S. Assistant Attorney Nathan Rehn then came forward to rebut, pointing out that while SBF repeatedly assured the safety of the funds, in reality, 8 billion dollars had been transferred to Alameda for investments and political donations. He cited an example of a victim who believed they had purchased three bitcoins on FTX, only to find that all the funds had been misappropriated.

The judge questioned, “Isn't the seized amount of 11 billion dollars too high?” Prosecutor Rehn responded, “According to the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, this amount is reasonable because the scale of SBF's criminal activities is quite large.”

The judge then asked, “So if the victim ultimately gets their money back, will this forfeiture still be enforced?” Rehn replied, “Yes. Because this judgment is calculated based on the amount of loss suffered by the victim at that time, it will not be canceled due to subsequent compensation.”

The defense once again cited the latest Supreme Court case of Kousisis v. United States, arguing that the current legal standards have changed and that the sentencing and amount of damages should be reconsidered. Ultimately, the judge announced: “The case will be submitted to the panel for further deliberation.”

(Note: SBF's legal team cites the case of Kousisis v. United States to argue that FTX's customers may ultimately receive compensation and therefore the losses on the books at that time should not be used as a basis for sentencing and forfeiture. In other words, they hope to use this precedent to challenge the original forfeiture of $11 billion and the 25-year sentence, arguing that the actual losses should be recalculated. )

(FTX founder SBF's last chance to appeal? Otherwise, he faces 25 years in prison! )

This article is about FTX founder SBF appealing against the presiding judge! A complete verbatim transcript of the scene is available for preview, first appeared in Chain News ABMedia.