Skip to content
Sam Bankman-Fried- Case Archive
Federal Criminal Trialtrial-daytrial-dayNicolas RoosMark S. Cohenclosing_argumentDay 18 - November 1, 2023The government argued that Bankman-Fried knowingly directed the misuse and concealment of FTX customer assets, while the defense attributed the collapse to operational failures and disputed proof of criminal intent.
← Day 17Federal Criminal TrialDay 19 →

Day 18 - November 1, 2023

Government and Defense Present Competing Closing Arguments

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan
3Proceedings
2Pages
0Witnesses
159Lines
1Sidebars
Day 18 of 19
Appearing:
Nicolas Roos Mark S. Cohen

The government argued that Bankman-Fried knowingly directed the misuse and concealment of FTX customer assets, while the defense attributed the collapse to operational failures and disputed proof of criminal intent.

Full day summary

Nicolas Roos argued for the government that Bankman-Fried knowingly directed the use of FTX customer assets through Alameda's special account privileges and receipt of customer deposits. He organized the intent argument around six asserted decision points, connected the government's evidence to the charged offenses, and disputed the defense theories of good faith, eventual repayment, and spot-margin borrowing. Roos asked the jury to return guilty verdicts on all counts. Mark Cohen argued for the defense that FTX's collapse resulted from weak controls, accounting failures, market conditions, and mistaken business decisions rather than fraudulent intent. He offered operational explanations for Alameda's role and account treatment, challenged the government's financial tracing and the reliability and incentives of cooperating witnesses, and emphasized the prosecution's burden of proof. Cohen asked the jury to acquit Bankman-Fried on all counts.

1. Government Closing Argument

Nicolas Roos presented the government's Day 18 closing argument, linking the evidence to the seven charged offenses and asking the jury for guilty verdicts on all counts.

→
Procedural
Final Charge Review and Closing Schedule
13 lines
Closing
Government Closing Argument — Nicolas Roos Nicolas Roos
80 lines

Nicolas Roos argued that Bankman-Fried knowingly used FTX customer assets through Alameda, concealed the resulting shortfall, misled customers, lenders, and investors, and was guilty on all seven charges.

Highlights

Government Closing Argument — Nicolas Roos“The core dispute in this case is whether the defendant knew taking the money was wrong. That's the core question. And the answer is clear. He took the money. He knew it was wrong. He did it anyway.”— Nicolas RoosRoos framed knowledge and intent, rather than the mechanics of cryptocurrency, as the central disputed issue.Government Closing Argument — Nicolas Roosevidence eventThe government organized its intent case around six asserted decision points, including the Binance stock repurchase, further investments, lender repayments, alternative balance sheets, September spending, and November public assurances.Government Closing Argument — Nicolas RoosotherThe prosecution rebutted the asserted good-faith, eventual-repayment, and spot-margin theories with the auto-delete evidence, Can Sun's account, account settings, and fund-tracing figures.

2. Defense Closing Argument

Mark Cohen used the defense closing argument on Day 18 to contend that FTX's collapse reflected business and accounting failures rather than criminal intent, and asked the jury to acquit Samuel Bankman-Fried on all seven counts.

→
Closing
Defense Closing Argument — Mark Cohen Mark S. Cohen
66 lines

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.

1 sidebar inside this proceeding
  1. Evening Schedule and a Jury BreakDefense counsel raised concern about juror attention as the proceedings ran into the evening.

Highlights

Defense Closing Argument — Mark Cohen“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.Defense Closing Argument — Mark Cohenevidence 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.Defense Closing Argument — Mark CohenimpeachmentCohen challenged the cooperating witnesses through differences in their accounts, secondhand information, personal conduct, plea agreements, immunity, and potential sentencing incentives.
← Day 17Federal Criminal TrialDay 19 →