FTX founder, Sam Bankman-Fried, is prepared to pay his expert witnesses up to $1,200 an hour for his upcoming trial.
Among these witnesses is Bradley Smith, a law professor at Capital University Law School and former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, who stated in a court filing that he will be compensated at an hourly rate of $1,200. Lawrence Akka, an English barrister specializing in digital assets, is also part of the expert witness lineup, with an hourly rate of 800 or $1,009, according to court filings seen by Insider.
The remaining four expert witnesses have proposed rates ranging from $400 to $720 per hour, while one did not specify their fee. All seven experts have declared in their court filings that they have no financial interest in the outcome of the case and that their payment is not contingent on their opinions.
Bankman-Fried, who previously claimed to have only $100,000 in his bank account following the collapse of his cryptocurrency exchange, is funding his defense with $10 million of company funds that he had previously gifted to his father, according to lawyers handling the FTX bankruptcy case. The substantial fees being paid to the expert witnesses are not uncommon in the legal industry, as FTX's own bankruptcy lawyers charge the firm up to $2,000 per hour.
Bankman-Fried is currently preparing his defense for his trial, scheduled to begin in October, where he faces seven charges, including wire fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. He has pleaded not guilty.
In his court filing, Bradley Smith stated that he would provide testimony on U.S. campaign finance laws, offering background information on their history and purpose. U.S. authorities allege that Bankman-Fried engaged in an illegal scheme using FTX customers' funds to donate millions to politicians.
However, prosecutors are seeking to exclude all of the proposed witnesses, expressing dissatisfaction with their selection. They argue that some of the witnesses would offer legal conclusions that encroach upon the court and jury's jurisdiction or serve no purpose other than to provide an expert veneer to inadmissible hearsay testimony regarding the defendant's alleged lack of criminal knowledge or intent. Prosecutors claim that this would confuse and mislead the jury.
Additionally, prosecutors argue that Smith's testimony is irrelevant since there is no specific campaign finance charge against Bankman-Fried. Nevertheless, they hope to use comments about political donations as evidence in fraud charges.
Furthermore, prosecutors contend that Akka's reliance on English case law in his court filing could confuse the jury due to the differences between the English and U.S. legal systems.
Login