Skip to content
Sam Bankman-Fried- Case Archive
personpersonMark S. CohenMark S. CohenTrial counsel who represented Samuel Bankman-Fried in his 2023 federal criminal case.← All People
DefenseCohen & Gresser, LLP

Mark S. Cohen

Trial counsel who represented Samuel Bankman-Fried in his 2023 federal criminal case.

AppearedFederal Criminal Trial
4,538 lines·83 proceedings

About

Mark S. Cohen presented the defense opening, arguing that Samuel Bankman-Fried acted in good faith and that rapid growth, weak controls, market shocks, and a liquidity crisis explained FTX's collapse rather than fraud. He asked jurors to assess the government's allegations against that account of business failure and risk.

Cohen's cross-examinations tested how customers and lenders assessed risk and what FTX and Alameda insiders knew or controlled. He elicited that Marc-Antoine Julliard understood cryptocurrency was risky and had no direct contact with Bankman-Fried, and he used BlockFi credit records to examine known lending risks, collateral, and whether Alameda exposure was the sole cause of BlockFi's bankruptcy. With Caroline Ellison and Nishad Singh, he challenged memory, responsibility, and cooperation incentives while examining shared bank accounts, internal ledger terminology, code privileges, political donations, personal transactions, and prior government interviews. He also questioned Can Sun about FTX's legal structures, Alameda's special account treatment, the November shortfall, compensation, and his nonprosecution agreement.

During the defense case, Cohen examined Bankman-Fried first at an evidentiary hearing and then before the jury. His questions elicited Bankman-Fried's account of lawyer-developed policies, Alameda's borrowing and customer-deposit roles, the discovery of the fiat liability, risk-management failures, the withdrawal crisis, rescue efforts, and post-bankruptcy conduct. On redirect, Cohen returned to margin trading, disclosures, Bahamian withdrawals, and post-collapse statements raised during cross-examination.

In closing, he divided the evidence between FTX's growth years and the stressed period of 2022, challenged cooperating witnesses' recollections and incentives, tied business and liquidity evidence to good faith, and argued that the government had not proved fraudulent intent or the absence of good faith beyond a reasonable doubt.

Trial Record (83)

FederalFederal Criminal TrialOct 3, 2023 – Nov 2, 2023

Mark S. Cohen presented the defense opening and closing, cross-examined customers, FTX and Alameda insiders, and a lender, and conducted Samuel Bankman-Fried's direct and redirect examinations. He argued that business mistakes and a liquidity crisis did not prove fraudulent intent and challenged cooperating-witness accounts.

Day 1

Day 2

OpeningDefense Opening StatementMark S. Cohen1highlight7lines spoken

Summary

The defense argued that Mr. Bankman-Fried acted in good faith and that rapid growth, weak controls, market shocks, and a liquidity crisis—not fraud—caused FTX's collapse.

Highlights (1)

Quote“Sam didn't defraud anyone. Sam didn't intend to defraud anyone. Sam acted in good faith in trying to build and run FTX and Alameda.”— Mark S. CohenStates the defense's central position on intent and good faith.Open in transcript →
ProceduralMedication Access Request7lines spoken

Summary

Defense counsel raised missed Adderall doses and their asserted effect on Mr. Bankman-Fried's focus; the court directed counsel to contact the Bureau of Prisons and confirmed an existing early-production order.

Day 3

Day 4

Day 5

Day 6

Day 7

Day 8

ProceduralRobing Room Medication Discussion6lines spoken

Summary

Defense counsel raised concerns that Bankman-Fried lacked effective Adderall coverage during trial hours. The prosecution relayed a planned extended-release BOP arrangement, and the court required a Monday status report.

Day 9

Day 10

Day 11

Day 12

Day 14

ProceduralGovernment Rest, Rule 29, and Defense-Case PreparationKrystal Rolle1highlight8lines spoken

Summary

The government rested, the court denied the defense's Rule 29 motion, reviewed redacted materials for Krystal Rolle, and began the defense case with Rolle's testimony.

Highlights (1)

Quote“Pursuant to Rule 29, defense moves for a judgment of acquittal. Your Honor, we submit that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction on all counts.”— Mark S. CohenStates the defense's central sufficiency challenge after the government rested.Open in transcript →
ProceduralAdvice-of-Counsel Evidentiary Hearing1highlight14lines spoken

Summary

The defense sought to present lawyer-consultation and industry-practice evidence without asserting a formal advice-of-counsel defense; the government challenged its relevance, and the court reserved its rulings while flagging a possible instruction about a denied subpoena.

Highlights (1)

Quote“Our position is not that any of these are entitled to a formal advice-of-counsel defense -- we have been very clear with the Court from the beginning to that effect -- nor is our position that the government might challenge the weight of the evidence or the way that our client interpreted things.”— Mark S. CohenDefense counsel defined the strategy as using lawyer consultations to support Bankman-Fried's state of mind without invoking a formal advice-of-counsel defense.Open in transcript →

Day 15

Day 16

sidebarHearsay Objection to Defendant's Statement1highlight12lines spoken

Summary

Counsel disputed whether Bankman-Fried's proposed statement to Nishad Singh that neither of them had done anything wrong was admissible under the state-of-mind exception. The court sustained the government's hearsay objection at sidebar and repeated the ruling in open court.

Highlights (1)

Quote“It goes to the weight of this, and not admissibility.”— Mark S. CohenThe defense framed the parties' competing interpretations as a matter for evaluating the evidence rather than excluding it.Open in transcript →

Day 17

Day 18

ClosingDefense Closing Argument — Mark CohenMark S. Cohen7highlights38lines spoken

Summary

The defense argued that good-faith business mistakes, accounting and risk-management failures, and a liquidity crisis—not fraudulent intent—caused FTX's collapse, while challenging cooperating witnesses and seeking acquittal on all counts.

Highlights (7)

Quote“But the question of whether Sam's business judgment was reasonable, even if it later turned out to be mistaken, is not a criminal one.”— Mark S. CohenThis sentence condensed the defense's central distinction between unsuccessful business judgment and fraudulent intent.Open in transcript →
otherCohen invoked good faith, reasonable doubt, and unanimity, emphasizing that the government bore the burden on every count and that the defense had no obligation to present evidence.Open in transcript →
Quote“We don't have a burden. We don't have a burden to offer any proof.”— Mark S. CohenCohen emphasized that the prosecution retained the burden of proof despite the defense's alternative account of the collapse.Open in transcript →
evidence eventCohen argued that the fiat@FTX bug, the later-recognized liability, lender repayments, and differing asset valuations supported a liquidity-crisis account rather than proof of criminal intent.Open in transcript →
Show all 7 highlights
impeachmentCohen challenged the cooperating witnesses through differences in their accounts, secondhand information, personal conduct, plea agreements, immunity, and potential sentencing incentives.Open in transcript →
Quote“The point here is not that Gary, Nishad, and Caroline are bad people.”— Mark S. CohenThe defense disclaimed a personal attack while arguing that pressure and cooperation incentives affected the witnesses' accounts.Open in transcript →
Quote“As I have said many times now, business decisions made in good faith are not grounds to convict.”— Mark S. CohenThe closing returned to its principal legal and factual theme immediately before requesting acquittal.Open in transcript →

Day 19

sidebarCorrections to the Final Jury Charge17lines spoken

Summary

Prosecutors and defense counsel flagged a typo in the written charge and passages the judge had misread or skipped, including reasonable-doubt language, and the defense raised its earlier charge objections for the record.