By:
The appeal, which was submitted on the final day feasible, delays the disclosure of the identities of the two bond guarantors for SBF until at least February 14.
The identities of the two guarantors who approved Sam Bankman-$250 Fried’s million bail bond will not be made public.
A judge rejected another agreement that would have allowed Bankman-Fried to use specific chat apps.
On February 7, Bankman Fried’s attorneys submitted an appeal to stop the last-minute disclosure of the guarantors’ names. There were no additional justifications for the revelation in the appeal. However, it will delay the enforcement of the order until February 14 to accommodate a request for an additional stay.
After United States District Judge Lewis Kaplan authorized a joint petition from eight prominent media outlets to unseal the names of the guarantors on January 30, the appeal was anticipated.
At the time, Kaplan noted his order was likely to be appealed given the novelty of the circumstances.
He claimed that the guarantors’ concerns that they “would endure similar intrusions” as Bankman-parents Fried’s lacked substance because their respective individual bonds, at $200,000 and $500,000, were substantially less.
The other two parties who approved the bond were Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried, Bankman Fried’s parents.
The judge further stated that the guarantors had exposed themselves to public scrutiny by willingly signing individual bonds in a “highly publicized criminal action.”
A deal between Bankman-attorneys Fried’s and the prosecution that would have altered the terms of bail and let Bankman-Fried to use specific chat apps was turned down by Kaplan on February 7.
Kaplan noted that the matter would be further reviewed in a hearing on February 9 but did not give a reason for refusing the motion.
After it was discovered that the former CEO had been getting in touch with previous and present colleagues, Kaplan issued an order on February 1 prohibiting Bankman-Fried from contacting FTX or Alameda Research workers, citing the potential of “inappropriate communication with possible witnesses.”
Reading More:
