BTC

$95489.878

-1.58%

ETH

$3283.922

-1.79%

XRP

$2.223

-0.50%

BNB

$649.003

-1.25%

News

7 Expert Witnesses In Sam Bankman-Fried Proposal All Rejected By DOJ

August 29, 2023 - Around 2 mins mins to read

Key Points:

  • The DOJ denied all expert witnesses proposed by Sam Bankman-Friesd.
  • Records reveal inexperienced witnesses may be misleading or their planned testimony may be irrelevant.
  • Witnesses revealed they received fees ranging from $400 to $1,200 an hour.
According to CoinDesk, US prosecutors stated in a document filed Monday that all seven witnesses proposed by FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) will be disqualified by the DOJ from testifying because of inexperience, could be potentially misleading, or the testimony they expected may not be relevant.
7 Expert Witnesses In Sam Bankman-Fried Proposal All Rejected by DOJ

The witnesses are Lawrence Akka, a British barrister, Thomas Bishop and Joseph Pimbley, who are with different consulting firms, Brian Kim, a data analytics and forensics expert, Bradley Smith, a law professor at Capital University Law School and Andrew Di Wu, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan. Peter Vinella, is being presented as an expert in the financial services industry.

Witnesses revealed how much they were charged for their testimony, saying they were charged hourly for their time and services, ranging from $400 to $1,200 an hour.

Akka is charging £800 per hour (~$1,010), Bishop is charging $400 per hour, Kim is charging $650 per hour, Pimbley is charging $720 per hour, Smith is charging charges $1,200 per hour, and Wu is charging $650 per hour. Vinella’s disclosure said his charges were independent of the outcome of the case but did not specify what those charges were.

The SBF team also wants to exclude Peter Easton, the financial analyst recommended by the DOJ, as his proposed testimony may not be allowed under the regulations.

The documents, part of the so-called Daubert petition (Application for Evidence by Witness Experts), filed Monday, set out both teams’ views on why some opposing witnesses could not be called to stand trial.

DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is provided as general market commentary and does not constitute investment advice. We encourage you to do your own research before investing.

News

7 Expert Witnesses In Sam Bankman-Fried Proposal All Rejected By DOJ

Key Points:

  • The DOJ denied all expert witnesses proposed by Sam Bankman-Friesd.
  • Records reveal inexperienced witnesses may be misleading or their planned testimony may be irrelevant.
  • Witnesses revealed they received fees ranging from $400 to $1,200 an hour.
According to CoinDesk, US prosecutors stated in a document filed Monday that all seven witnesses proposed by FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) will be disqualified by the DOJ from testifying because of inexperience, could be potentially misleading, or the testimony they expected may not be relevant.
7 Expert Witnesses In Sam Bankman-Fried Proposal All Rejected by DOJ

The witnesses are Lawrence Akka, a British barrister, Thomas Bishop and Joseph Pimbley, who are with different consulting firms, Brian Kim, a data analytics and forensics expert, Bradley Smith, a law professor at Capital University Law School and Andrew Di Wu, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan. Peter Vinella, is being presented as an expert in the financial services industry.

Witnesses revealed how much they were charged for their testimony, saying they were charged hourly for their time and services, ranging from $400 to $1,200 an hour.

Akka is charging £800 per hour (~$1,010), Bishop is charging $400 per hour, Kim is charging $650 per hour, Pimbley is charging $720 per hour, Smith is charging charges $1,200 per hour, and Wu is charging $650 per hour. Vinella’s disclosure said his charges were independent of the outcome of the case but did not specify what those charges were.

The SBF team also wants to exclude Peter Easton, the financial analyst recommended by the DOJ, as his proposed testimony may not be allowed under the regulations.

The documents, part of the so-called Daubert petition (Application for Evidence by Witness Experts), filed Monday, set out both teams’ views on why some opposing witnesses could not be called to stand trial.

DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is provided as general market commentary and does not constitute investment advice. We encourage you to do your own research before investing.