On February 1st the federal judge presiding over the SBF case prohibited Sam Bankman Fried from contacting employees of both Alameda and FTX.
“The undisputed information available to the Court regarding the ‘nature and seriousness of the danger... posed by the defendant’s continued release’ on the existing conditions has changed substantially since he was released, and there appears to be a material threat of inappropriate contact with prospective witnesses,”
These concerns arose after prosecutors claim that Bankman-Fried has been in contact with current and former employees of FTX and Alameda, such as current FTX CEO John Ray to “offer assistance.” as well as Ryne Miller, the current general counsel to FTX US, in an alleged attempt to influence future witness testimony.
Now however it would seem that Counsel for former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried is engaged in discussions with US prosecutors to resolve issues related to these bail conditions, arguing that he needs to be in touch with former employees, including the company's in-house therapist, as they are an important source of personal support.
“I would really love to reconnect and see if there’s a way for us to have a constructive relationship, use each other as resources when possible, or at least vet things with each other,” Bankman-Fried.
According to a recent court filing. Mark Cohen, Bankman-Fried's counsel, wrote in a letter to the court claiming that the parties are optimistic that an agreement will be reached in the next few days and eliminate the need for further litigation.
Anything else sir?
Bankman-Fried's lawyers have also requested the court to remove the bail condition prohibiting him from accessing and transferring his crypto assets held by FTX. A hearing regarding these particular bail conditions was scheduled for Feb. 2 but has been requested to be rescheduled to Feb. 6 by Cohen.
This latest request may be related to the incident that transpired on December 30th where a transfer of $684,000 in crypto from wallets linked to the former CEO was reportedly made to a Seychelles exchange that doesn't require KYC.
An obvious ploy?
While no connection has been proven and the former CEO publicly denied any involvement, claiming that he no longer has access to the funds and suggesting that the exchange may have accessed them. This latest request sounds a lot like an attempt to repeat the incident legally, so as not to risk losing his temporary freedom but still have access to funds.
What do you think? Is the former CEO abusing his bail or are these reasonable requests?