DOJ moves to disqualify all of Sam Bankman-Fried's "expert witnesses"

Originally published at: DOJ moves to disqualify all of Sam Bankman-Fried's "expert witnesses" | Boing Boing


Well played with the illustration. It took me several goes before my brain stopped reading the headline as “Doge moves to disqualify all of Sam Bankman-Fried’s “expert witnesses”.”




I mean, I hope DOJ wins these motions, but this isn’t news. Daubert motions against experts are perfectly routine; it’s probably more notable when an expert doesn’t face a Daubert motion (unless a judge has a really strict limit on motions in limine, which this judge doesn’t seem to).


“Such expunge” “Much expert” “How witness”


He better get used to prison loaf.


Docket: United States v. BANKMAN-FRIED, 1:22-cr-00673 –

Government Motion to excllude experts

According to the defendant’s notice, if permitted by the Court, the witnesses would opine on the following topics:
• Mr. Akka would opine that the FTX terms of service “did not contain a declaration of trust over any fiat currency, but gave rise only to a contractual creditor-debtor relationship,” and therefore FTX “was not constrained to use fiat currency for any particular purpose.” Ex A at 3.
• Mr. Bishop would testify about “calculations of financial figures and metrics (e.g., net asset value) for FTX Trading Ltd, Alameda Research LLC and other entities based on publicly available information or records produced.” Ex. B at 2. The notice for Mr. Bishop does not otherwise identify any opinions that Mr. Bishop will offer.
• Mr. Kim would provide “background testimony concerning document metadata and potential or permissible inferences drawn therefrom.” Ex. C at 2. The notice for Mr. Kim does not otherwise identify any opinions that Mr. Kim will offer.
• Mr. Pimbley would opine that “FTX’s software infrastructure … had insufficiently robust reporting and insufficient testing and quality assurance of data integrity and code,” and that “many of these deficiencies … were not visible to external users or recipients.” Ex. D at 2.
• Professor Smith would provide background information on the United States campaign finance laws, including about specific restrictions on contributions and use of corporate funds. See Ex. E at 2-3.

Defense Motion to Exclude experts

The Government’s August 16, 2023, expert disclosures identify Professor Easton as an expert in “financial analysis, accounting, and financial tracing” and set forth nine opinions that the Government expects to elicit from Professor Easton at trial. (Lisner Decl. Ex. 1 (“Easton Disclosure”).)

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.