SBF的上诉有机会成功吗？

CoinDesk 联系的律师对 FTX 创始人是否会再次接受审判持怀疑态度。

Sam Bankman-Fried filed an appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, Sept. 13, arguing that he was unfairly treated at trial, which took place as public scrutiny of the FTX case reached a fever pitch.

Sam Bankman-Fried 于 9 月 13 日星期五向第二巡回上诉法院提出上诉，辩称他在审判中受到不公平待遇，此次审判发生在公众对 FTX 案件的审查达到白热化之际。

His new lead lawyer, Alexandra Shapiro, argues in the appeal that SBF was “presumed guilty by federal prosecutors eager for quick headlines,” “presumed guilty by the judge who presided over his trial,” and that the “prevailing narrative” of FTX’s collapse, and SBF’s part in it, was accepted as true, without proper inquiry.

他的新首席律师亚历山德拉·夏皮罗 (Alexandra Shapiro) 在上诉中辩称，SBF“被急于成为头条新闻的联邦检察官推定有罪”，“被主持审判的法官推定有罪”，并且 FTX 倒闭的“普遍说法” ，以及 SBF 在其中的部分，未经适当询问就被认为是真实的。

“From day one, the prevailing narrative—initially spun by the lawyers who took over FTX, quickly adopted by their contacts at the U.S. Attorney’s Office—was that Bankman-Fried had stolen billions of dollars of customer funds, driven FTX to insolvency, and caused billions in losses,” the appeal continues.

“从第一天开始，流行的说法——最初是由接管 FTX 的律师编造的，很快就被美国检察官办公室的联系人所采纳——是 Bankman-Fried 窃取了数十亿美元的客户资金，导致 FTX 破产，并且造成了数十亿美元的损失，”上诉仍在继续。

“Now, nearly two years later, a very different picture is emerging—one confirming FTX was never insolvent, and in fact had assets worth billions to repay its customers. But the jury at BankmanFried’s trial never got to see that picture.”

“现在，近两年后，一幅截然不同的画面正在出现——确认 FTX 从未资不抵债，而且事实上拥有价值数十亿美元的资产来偿还客户。但班克曼弗里德审判中的陪审团从未看到过那张照片。”

However, lawyers contacted by CoinDesk were skeptical that SBF would win a retrial, given the high bar for such legal turnovers.

然而，CoinDesk 联系的律师对 SBF 能否赢得重审表示怀疑，因为此类法律失误的门槛很高。

“It’s just not very common for an appellate court to double-guess a case like this,” said Tama Beth Kudman, partner at Kudman Trachten Aloe Posner.

Kudman Trachten Aloe Posner 合伙人 Tama Beth Kudman 表示：“上诉法院对此类案件进行双重猜测的情况并不常见。”

SBF’s lawyers would have to prove not only that Kaplan was biased against SBF, she said, and also that such bias led to actions that were prejudicial against SBF.

她说，SBF 的律师不仅必须证明卡普兰对 SBF 有偏见，而且这种偏见导致了对 SBF 不利的行动。

To allow the appeal to go forward, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals would be saying effectively that it thought the judge in the original case acted inappropriately – something it rarely does, Kudman said.

库德曼说，为了让上诉继续进行，第二巡回上诉法院将有效地表示，它认为原案法官的行为不当——但这种情况很少发生。

The appeals court might order a retrial if SBF's lawyers could show that Kaplan had a personal conflict of interest. But there’s no evidence for that, thus far. “Kaplan is known as a well-tempered, good natured judge. I would have thought he would have stepped aside if there was any reason that he shouldn’t be hearing the case,” Kudman said.

如果 SBF 的律师能够证明 Kaplan 存在个人利益冲突，上诉法院可能会下令重审。但到目前为止，还没有证据表明这一点。 “卡普兰以脾气好、脾气好而闻名。我本以为如果有任何理由他不应该审理此案，他就会退到一边，”库德​​曼说。

Joshua Ashley Klayman, the U.S. head of fintech and head of blockchain and digital assets at Linklaters, said the appeal may have been timed to coincide with sentencing for Caroline Ellison, SBF’s former colleague and sometime lover.

美国金融科技主管兼年利达区块链和数字资产主管约书亚·阿什利·克雷曼 (Joshua Ashley Klayman) 表示，上诉的时间可能与 SBF 前同事、有时是情人的卡罗琳·埃里森 (Caroline Ellison) 的量刑同时发生。

U.S. government lawyers have not requested jail time for Ellison, noting that the SBF case would have been “difficult to prove” without her testimony. Shapiro may be trying to juxtapose SBF’s steep sentencing with Ellison’s much lighter penalty.

美国政府律师没有要求埃里森入狱，并指出如果没有她的证词，SBF 案件将“难以证明”。夏皮罗可能试图将 SBF 的严厉判刑与埃里森轻得多的处罚并列。

“Without expressing a view on the likelihood of success of Sam Bankman-Fried’s appeal, the timing of his filing may be strategic," Klayman said. "SBF’s appeal was filed on September 13, 2024, three days after the filing of Caroline Ellison’s sentencing memorandum. SBF was sentenced to 25 years in prison, while Caroline Ellison’s counsel has requested a non-custodial sentence."

克莱曼表示：“虽然没有对萨姆·班克曼-弗里德上诉成功的可能性发表看法，但他提出上诉的时机可能具有战略意义。”“SBF 于 2024 年 9 月 13 日提出上诉，即卡罗琳·埃里森宣判的三天后备忘录。 SBF 被判处 25 年监禁，而卡罗琳·埃里森的律师则请求非监禁刑罚。”

Klayman said news that FTX creditors are being repaid could help SBF's legal team.

克莱曼表示，FTX 债权人正在得到偿还的消息可能会对 SBF 的法律团队有所帮助。

“The mainstream media has reported on FTX’s plans to repay customers. Perhaps SBF and his counsel may hope that, with the passage of time, SBF’s arguments [that FTX customers didn’t lose money] may be viewed in a different light."

“主流媒体已经报道了FTX偿还客户的计划。也许 SBF 和他的律师可能希望，随着时间的推移，SBF 的论点（FTX 客户没有赔钱）可能会从不同的角度来看待。”

Joe Valenti, partner in the White Collar & Government Enforcement practice at law firm Saul Ewing, says appeals courts tend to give significant discretion to judges in weighing evidence, provided they meet a basic standard of reasonableness.

Saul Ewing 律师事务所白领和政府执法业务合伙人乔·瓦伦蒂 (Joe Valenti) 表示，只要法官符合基本的合理性标准，上诉法院往往会在权衡证据方面给予法官很大的自由裁量权。

"Anything that's tied to the reading of the facts, or the conduct of the courtroom, they give significant leeway to the court," he said. Judges are allowed to control the courtroom in the interest of expeditious justice and limiting evidence from being admitted to the record is well within the discretion of the judge.

他说：“任何与事实解读或法庭行为有关的事情，都会给法庭很大的回旋余地。”法官可以为了迅速司法而控制法庭，并且限制证据被记录在案完全属于法官的自由裁量权。

As for the argument that customers are being made whole in bankruptcy, Valenti doesn't see that argument holding much water either.

至于顾客因破产而变得完整的说法，瓦伦蒂也不认为这种说法站得住脚。

"It doesn't matter if the money was paid back. If you're a cashier at the supermarket and you take $20 to go to the casino, it doesn’t matter if you give back the money the next day. You still took money from the grocery store."

“钱退了没有关系，如果你是超市收银员，拿着20块钱去赌场，第二天把钱还了也没关系，你还是拿了”杂货店的钱。”