The New York Times (NYT) is asking the court to lift a gag order restricting the statements Sam Bankman-Fried can make to the press after the former CEO of FTX called the publication the private writings from his close associate, Caroline Ellison.
After the NYT published the story about Ellison, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sent a letter to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan stating that the government filed a motion to prevent Bankman-Fried and his attorneys from making “damaging out-of-court statements ” traveled.
Ffederal prosecutors accuse Bankman-Fried of witness tampered while Ellison, former CEO of FTX trading arm Alameda Research, is on hand to give her testimony in the case. On July 26, the court issued a preliminary injunction order prohibiting all parties from discussing the matter with the media.
In a letter dated August 2, The New York Times senior vice president and deputy general counsel David McCraw asked Kaplan to reconsider the gag order.
“While the current practice of the motion was prompted by a Times article on Caroline Ellison, and the government argues that the article was part of the defendant’s attempt to disrupt the trial, that overlooks the legitimate interest of the public – independent of this prosecution – in Ms. Ellison and her activities at her cryptocurrency trading firm.
McGraw says news organizations are trying to give the public details about Ellison and what she did because of her important role in the fallen Bankman-Fried crypto empire.
“She has confessed to being a central participant in a financial scheme that defrauded investors out of billions of dollars — a scheme that went undetected by government regulators and law enforcement until the public’s money was gone.”
McGraw says the court should not place restrictions that prevent the suspect from speaking freely to the press.
“Of course, the parties may well choose not to speak to the press in the future, but Rule 23.1 provides appropriate safeguards and balancing of interests if they choose to do so. We respectfully ask that such restrictions be imposed only as permitted by the First Amendment and Rule 23.1(a) and (h).”
Don’t Miss Out – Subscribe to receive email alerts delivered straight to your inbox
Check price action
follow us on TwitterFacebook and Telegram
Surf the Daily Hodl mix
Image generated: Midway through the journey