Judge Denies Sam Bankman-Fried’s Pre-Trial Release

SBF had previously violated his bail conditions in minor ways, such as by using VPNs to watch football games. Although the court did not constitute such relatively innocuous breaches as enough of a reason to reverse his bail, it nevertheless put them on guard against further infractions.

However, it later turned out that he had used Signal and other messaging apps to contact the remaining FTX staff, which got him a warning. The following leak of Caroline Ellison’s private diary was the straw that broke the camel’s back and sent him back to prison.

First Amendment Not Violated

SBF’s latest plea for release, which was filed yesterday, made the argument that his reincarceration was the result of a violation of his First Amendment rights.

According to his legal team, the leak of Ellison’s diary and his attempts to communicate with key witnesses were nothing but an exercise in free speech. The court, however, saw things differently, stating that the unlawful intent behind SBF’s actions renders his speech unprotected by the First Amendment.

“The Defendant argues that the district court failed to consider the extent to which he was engaged in activity that was protected by the First Amendment. But the district court expressly noted that it was “exceptionally mindful of the defendant’s First Amendment rights.” It correctly determined that when a person engages in speech to commit a criminal offense such as witness tampering, that speech falls outside the zone of constitutional protection.”

Alternative to Jail off the Table

Failing a reversal of SBF’s previous bail conditions, his legal team requested a less restrictive detention regimen. Previously, they had argued for more time spent in the courthouse in order to grant SBF better internet access, an extra laptop, and so on.

This request was also rejected by the court due to the fact that SBF’s previous behavior indicated that harm to other people was very much possible if he were to be allowed communication with them in any form.

“The finding of probable cause to believe that the Defendant-Appellant had committed criminal offenses while on pretrial release raised a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will assure that the person will not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community.”

Furthermore, the court noted that prior to the bail reversal, efforts had been made several times to restrict SBF’s detention without remanding him to jail. However, SBF had found small workarounds every time, leaving the authorities with no alternative to jail.