The United States Department of Justice (DoJ) filed a complaint against FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), accusing him of disclosing the private documents of its witness Caroline Ellison, a former business associate and romantic partner.
In a new complaint filed on July 20, the Department of Justice accused Bankman-Fried of attempting to obstruct justice by publicly discrediting Ellison, who became a government witness in SBF’s case in late 2022.
U.S. Attorney Damian Williams argued in the complaint that SBF attempted to publicly discredit a government witness by sharing her private writings with a reporter so that they could be featured in an article published by The New York Times on July 20.
In her diary, Ellison detailed feeling overworked at Alameda Research and the agony of her breakup with SBF, and her professional insecurity.
Williams stated that it is “obvious” that Bankman-Fried shared documents with the New York Times, despite the article’s omission of such information. He penned:
“When the government learned this week that this article was forthcoming, defense counsel confirmed that the defendant had met with one of the article’s authors in person and had shared documents with him that were not part of the government’s discovery material.”
Based on the excerpts in the article, the attorney continued by stating that the documents “do not appear to be part of the discovery materials in the case, but rather originated from the defendant’s personal Google Drive account.”
Williams continued by stating that the U.S. federal rules of civil procedure prohibit attorneys and their agents from disclosing non-public information that could compromise a fair trial.
As a result, the government asks the court to issue an order according to Local Rule 23.1, which prohibits “extrajudicial statements by parties and witnesses” that are likely to interfere with the right to a fair trial before an impartial juror. Williams added:
“Having the story appear in a reputable newspaper with a worldwide readership without identifying the defendant as the source lends a misleading patina of legitimacy to what would otherwise be naked advocacy, compounding the risk of tainting prospective jurors.”
