Sam has been a great resource. He is concise, he knows the law, knows the judge, and is impartial. I have really enjoyed all of the coverage this channel has provided!
I'm watching pretty much all news about the Bankman-Fried trial, but I have to say that the Unchained Crypto videos with Sams analysis and commentary are by far the best and offer the most insight about how the trial is actually going for a layman like myself (as I have an IT background "obviously").
Well his own parents are quite obviously shady and unethical lawyers so this was all foreseeable. I read the SEC filing against the parents and they have zero integrity whatsoever, uh, "allegedly."
Juries are thoughtful, serious, intelligent citizens. One of the best experiences of my life was serving on a jury. Everyone was focused on doing the right thing.
SBF's defense doesn't excuse the facts of the case even if you believe it. If only FTX customers doing margin trading had their money given to alameda then every FTX customer who had no margin position should have been able to withdraw their money , yet they weren't able to because their money had already been taken against the terms of service , Their terms of service clearly said that customer deposits would be kept safe on FTX and not used for anything else without customer's permission so the vast majority of non margin-trading FTX customers should have had all their funds totally safe even if some mysterious magical margin emergency happened that somehow forced all customers with open margin positions to lose all their open positions. The only way regular customers wouldn't be able to so is if FTX was stealing their regular customers money. Coffeezilla made this point directly to SBF during a twitter space. Almost else seems to be pointing this out when it should be the only thing anyone says about the vague "muh margin trading" excuse. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Totally agree. All the Prosecutor needs to prove intent to commit fraud is reckless indifference to the truth or falsity of a representation. He was clearly recklessly indifferent to the TOS. The margin trading, and customers retaining possession of their funds, are only two points. The multiple times he says "I don't recall," or "that's not how I remember it," ad infinitum, proves he is a "recklessly indifferent" person in general. He is "recklessly indifferent" on the witness stand about important issues. I'm not sure if my understanding of Enzer's explanation about safeguarding assets/embezzling assets is correct, but it sounds like it must have been included in TOS that customer assets were protected/insured from embezzlement, and that is a fraudulent misrepresentation of the facts.
This video is the best video I've seen about the trial. Thanks so much for this wonderful interview. I learned more here than I have in all other ones combined.
Great interview, and great breakdown. Thank you, Laura, for all the in-depth work that you do. And also for putting in some crazy hours during this trial!
SBF's interpretation of margin trading is recklessly indifferent to what was represented to customers. Recklessly indifferent satisfies the criteria regarding the Prosecutor's burden to prove intent to commit fraud.
Sam Enzer says "and vice versa." Does he really think it's not just a matter of showing evidence to the jury, the judge can also rule on whether they should show the jury to the evidence? He may be trying to say "pari passu." Not only the prosecution, but also the defense, may have a view to present to the judge -- about what evidence should be shown to the jury.
there is something called a point and how to arrive at it via the most direct route--different from the SBF route and I think in the end it will all come back to bite him in the ass. As my mother was fond of saying: The ability to keep your mouth shut at certain times will never hurt you.
Maybe if SBF had Sam Enzer he'd have had a shot at not going to jail because this guys is A LOT better just on a podcast then his lawyers are in trial lol.
He only needs to cast doubt in 1 Juror that it was not his intension to defraud and he walks fee. That would be incredible because the other three have admitted their guilt so would go to prison
Hello, new subscriber. Thank you for your great coverage of SBF's Trial. Brilliant commentary from your guest lawyer Sam which made this trial so much easier to follow & understand. Appreciate your sharing. Take it easy 😊
Thank you for excellent coverage of the trial. Question: has anyone talked about how the adults in the room set up Sam to take this fall? SBF didn’t set up FTX alone - attorneys, parents, other advisors made him the front man and ultimately the fall guy. If there was an active shooter, those adults would have shoved Sam in front to take the bullet - in this case prison.
I don't agree with the judge who decided last week to filter Sam's testimony. Nonsensical or not, the jury is finder of fact and is supposed to decide whether it's is true or not. Rule 104 is there to help a defendant avoid self incrimination. c(3) of 104 is kind of a trashy catchall phrase if "justice so requires". This gives the judge a way to subvert the trial by preventing certain testimony. 104 starts with good intentions but fails with c(3). Sam created a multi billion company with his ability to be this mad genius persona. He was on the cover of Forbes in Oct 2021. "Sam is a 29 year-old American expat who built a $22.5 billion crypto fortune in a little over four years. However, he is an ‘effective altruist’, which is sort of a Silicon Valley slant on philanthropy that relies on reason and data to do the most good in the world. Sam’s assumed role in this movement is to make as much money as possible so that it can be put to good use." Sam is probably guilty of massive fraud. But, all he has to do is convince the jury that his acts were bad but unintentional. He convinced many financial experts that his way of doing business was cutting edge and made sense. He just has to persuade twelve more people.
The trouble with the no nothing defence is if you are stupid, you still took customer funds, best outcome - 10 years. SBF will talk himself over 30, of course.
I’ve been following the trial closely. At the start I felt like SBF was an open and shut fraudster. Now I feel like he was extremely careless, completely out of his depth and that he and all his inner circle believed they were smarter than anyone else and that they would be able to talk or trade their way out of any situation.
His reckless disregard actually proves fraud (it's part of the definition of fraud Prosecutor has to prove). I think you were right the first time. Combined with the information about his former attorney Friedberg which can be found in a lawsuit against him filed by John Ray, and his families involvement, there seems to be a criminal enterprise at work.
Enjoy the information that you’re passing, but if you said “like” less you would appear more professional also to the people you’re interviewing I’m sure
Hi Laura, Thank you for all your hard work on the Bankman Fried trial. I feel sorry for Sam, he seems like a really kind and innovative person, I am sorry all his former colleagues have squealed on him. All the $millions he paid them didn't buy any loyalty. I am sure Danielle Sassoon will dissect his arguments today, but if I was on the jury I would raise a reasonable doubt. I think I will buy your book on crypto, it sounds really interesting.
What is the point of "censoring" testimony for the jury if it is made public? Are the jury members legally prohibited from reading the news or watching a podcast such as yours? If not, they can find out about this info all over Twitter and TH-cam anyway.
Jurors are prohibited from watching any news or social media on the trial and the topic of the trial. They are given clear instructions on this and are reminded of it regularly. Jurors typically take their role very seriously and adhere to that rule. If it is discovered a juror broke those rules a mistrial is declared.
@@LydiaSnider interesting. Not sure how practical this is in the day of social media. Maybe your friend posts something on Facebook. Or it is just on the news or wherever and you get wind of it inadvertently. But got it thanks
Jury are supposed to not look at new/internet. Think of if all mainstream media hated the defendant because of his views, and they effectively "poisoned the well" even if he was innocent and the court proceedings were favorable to him. The point of a jury is that it's 12-16 normal people who don't know anything about the problem and who can listen to both sides without biases( hating or loving) towards one side or another. Usually at the start of every day the judge will ask the jury if they have been on social media, talked to people( including family) and watched TV, if a jury member says they have the judge and lawyers will grill them on what they've been exposed to and if it's relevant to the case they'll toss that jury member and sub in one of the 3-4 spare jury members.
@@cryptolystagreed. I have posted about the case on Facebook. I wonder how many jurors even know what crypto cryptocurrency is. I wonder if it was asked during voir dire. I wonder if they weeded out jurors who did or did not know. Because if I was a juror, I'd have to go home every night researching it.
This Attorney is fantastic and this is the best coverage of the trial I have seen....by far!
I just have to say that your interviews Sam Enzer are enlightening, I learned so much.
Nice interview; good to have a knowledgeable trial lawyer explain the quasi-advice-of-counsel defense.
p
Sam has been a great resource. He is concise, he knows the law, knows the judge, and is impartial. I have really enjoyed all of the coverage this channel has provided!
I'm watching pretty much all news about the Bankman-Fried trial, but I have to say that the Unchained Crypto videos with Sams analysis and commentary are by far the best and offer the most insight about how the trial is actually going for a layman like myself (as I have an IT background "obviously").
Fantastic discussion. Thank you for making it available.
Well his own parents are quite obviously shady and unethical lawyers so this was all foreseeable. I read the SEC filing against the parents and they have zero integrity whatsoever, uh, "allegedly."
But are they not Jewish?
@@m.s.biteth1164they are liberal elitist ivory tower academics. That's their race.
Juries are thoughtful, serious, intelligent citizens. One of the best experiences of my life was serving on a jury. Everyone was focused on doing the right thing.
Sam adds a plausible perspective to the Defence arguments and I agree with you both the the Cross will be brutal for SBF.
SBF's defense doesn't excuse the facts of the case even if you believe it. If only FTX customers doing margin trading had their money given to alameda then every FTX customer who had no margin position should have been able to withdraw their money , yet they weren't able to because their money had already been taken against the terms of service , Their terms of service clearly said that customer deposits would be kept safe on FTX and not used for anything else without customer's permission so the vast majority of non margin-trading FTX customers should have had all their funds totally safe even if some mysterious magical margin emergency happened that somehow forced all customers with open margin positions to lose all their open positions. The only way regular customers wouldn't be able to so is if FTX was stealing their regular customers money.
Coffeezilla made this point directly to SBF during a twitter space. Almost else seems to be pointing this out when it should be the only thing anyone says about the vague "muh margin trading" excuse. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Probably saving that stuff for cross examination
Totally agree. All the Prosecutor needs to prove intent to commit fraud is reckless indifference to the truth or falsity of a representation. He was clearly recklessly indifferent to the TOS. The margin trading, and customers retaining possession of their funds, are only two points. The multiple times he says "I don't recall," or "that's not how I remember it," ad infinitum, proves he is a "recklessly indifferent" person in general. He is "recklessly indifferent" on the witness stand about important issues.
I'm not sure if my understanding of Enzer's explanation about safeguarding assets/embezzling assets is correct, but it sounds like it must have been included in TOS that customer assets were protected/insured from embezzlement, and that is a fraudulent misrepresentation of the facts.
Utterly fascinating to hear someone ( Enzer) who REALLY, REALLY knows what he is talking about. Great interview Ms Shin
Another outstanding interview with Sam! Thank you!
I really enjoyed this convo between someone who was there and a lawyer familiar with the jurisdiction.
“Self serving interpretation” - I love that, phrase
This video is the best video I've seen about the trial. Thanks so much for this wonderful interview. I learned more here than I have in all other ones combined.
Great interview, and great breakdown. Thank you, Laura, for all the in-depth work that you do. And also for putting in some crazy hours during this trial!
Judge "all these facts are hurting our client!" 😂😂😂
Enzer is a great explainer.
Sam makes me feel dumb. He is ability to explain complex situations logically is top shelf
If you can't dazzle people with your Brillance; Baffle them with Your Bullshit.
For clarity, that's Sam Enzer, who explains things well, NOT Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF). SBF just spouts incoherent rambling.
if only sam was as smart as sam
Great interview and great guest
Sam enzer is such a great, knowledgeable guest! Really enjoy hearing his take
...as long as he sticks to English.
SBF's interpretation of margin trading is recklessly indifferent to what was represented to customers. Recklessly indifferent satisfies the criteria regarding the Prosecutor's burden to prove intent to commit fraud.
Sam Enzer says "and vice versa." Does he really think it's not just a matter of showing evidence to the jury, the judge can also rule on whether they should show the jury to the evidence?
He may be trying to say "pari passu." Not only the prosecution, but also the defense, may have a view to present to the judge -- about what evidence should be shown to the jury.
Kudos to atty Sam for using language that we can all understand! 👍😊
there is something called a point and how to arrive at it via the most direct route--different from the SBF route and I think in the end it will all come back to bite him in the ass. As my mother was fond of saying: The ability to keep your mouth shut at certain times will never hurt you.
i still think sam enzer should have his own you tube channel for us lay people
Love the legal responses by Sam here!
Maybe if SBF had Sam Enzer he'd have had a shot at not going to jail because this guys is A LOT better just on a podcast then his lawyers are in trial lol.
Really solid recap
Sam Enzer gives an excellent interview !!!
Thanks Laura! Outstanding interview with Sam!
Really interesting to have this in-depth expert opinion. I will surely follow the rest on your channel.
Such good commentary, as always. Laura ❤🧡💛💚💙💜🤎🖤🤍
Can someone explain more about what is said at 30:00?
Adverts and sponsorships pushing defi never end well for you tubers...take care
Thx Laura and thanx to Sam Enzer!
He only needs to cast doubt in 1 Juror that it was not his intension to defraud and he walks fee. That would be incredible because the other three have admitted their guilt so would go to prison
Great interview, and big thank you to your guest.
The Prosecutor only needs to prove reckless indifference to the truth or facts of a representation to prove fraud. They don't need a smoking gun.
Great coverage!
Hello, new subscriber. Thank you for your great coverage of SBF's Trial. Brilliant commentary from your guest lawyer Sam which made this trial so much easier to follow & understand. Appreciate your sharing. Take it easy 😊
Can anyone explain why there's no TV signal available at this court? Why this 19th century approach?
The case was not made public to protect the privacy of the one million identities of customers/investors in FTX/Alameda.
Love these interviews with Sam - thanks
this is so juicy, wow.. excellent commentary and interview!
Great guest!
Very clear and competent report 👍
Sam is awesome. I would not like to face him on the stand, that's for sure.
I keep hearing the term safe embezzlement. What does that mean?
Sam Enzer's comments are very illuminating.
The parents are more guilty.
Thank you for excellent coverage of the trial. Question: has anyone talked about how the adults in the room set up Sam to take this fall? SBF didn’t set up FTX alone - attorneys, parents, other advisors made him the front man and ultimately the fall guy. If there was an active shooter, those adults would have shoved Sam in front to take the bullet - in this case prison.
I don't agree with the judge who decided last week to filter Sam's testimony. Nonsensical or not, the jury is finder of fact and is supposed to decide whether it's is true or not. Rule 104 is there to help a defendant avoid self incrimination. c(3) of 104 is kind of a trashy catchall phrase if "justice so requires". This gives the judge a way to subvert the trial by preventing certain testimony. 104 starts with good intentions but fails with c(3).
Sam created a multi billion company with his ability to be this mad genius persona.
He was on the cover of Forbes in Oct 2021.
"Sam is a 29 year-old American expat who built a $22.5 billion crypto fortune in a little over four years. However, he is an ‘effective altruist’, which is sort of a Silicon Valley slant on philanthropy that relies on reason and data to do the most good in the world. Sam’s assumed role in this movement is to make as much money as possible so that it can be put to good use."
Sam is probably guilty of massive fraud. But, all he has to do is convince the jury that his acts were bad but unintentional. He convinced many financial experts that his way of doing business was cutting edge and made sense. He just has to persuade twelve more people.
The best question a lawyer can ask a witness is: Were you lying then or are you lying now?
SBF has probably earned himself another 10 years on his sentence, from his testimony?
Excellent reporting 👏👏👏 thank you
The trouble with the no nothing defence is if you are stupid, you still took customer funds, best outcome - 10 years. SBF will talk himself over 30, of course.
Adverts end 2:12
Superior orders as a defence is usually only reserved for military personnel.
fascinatin, fabulous insight into subtle things that go unnoticed
Sam's so insightful and fantastic
SBF might even be a clever man, but he's in their world now. Plus, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Sam is impressive.
Great intervire
Ewww crypto ads
Good job
It's not a lie if you believe it.
George Costanza
Nick Rose
Is going to close.
Nice!
I’ve been following the trial closely. At the start I felt like SBF was an open and shut fraudster. Now I feel like he was extremely careless, completely out of his depth and that he and all his inner circle believed they were smarter than anyone else and that they would be able to talk or trade their way out of any situation.
That doesn't preclude him from being a fraudster, if anything it reinforces it
but but but.. He has curly hair, and wears basic clothes, and drives a Toyota Corolla! Clearly a good kid and no fraudster
@@dbased1915 that’s exactly the tactic the defence are using
His reckless disregard actually proves fraud (it's part of the definition of fraud Prosecutor has to prove).
I think you were right the first time. Combined with the information about his former attorney Friedberg which can be found in a lawsuit against him filed by John Ray, and his families involvement, there seems to be a criminal enterprise at work.
Sick, still waiting for this evidence about Charles hoskinson lol
He "has woven" a narrative, big boy.
SBF is going to lose, why he brothers to try?
Enjoy the information that you’re passing, but if you said “like” less you would appear more professional also to the people you’re interviewing I’m sure
Hi Laura, Thank you for all your hard work on the Bankman Fried trial. I feel sorry for Sam, he seems like a really kind and innovative person, I am sorry all his former colleagues have squealed on him. All the $millions he paid them didn't buy any loyalty. I am sure Danielle Sassoon will dissect his arguments today, but if I was on the jury I would raise a reasonable doubt. I think I will buy your book on crypto, it sounds really interesting.
He will make a wonderful wife.
He will be acquitted. After all, he was at one time the largest donor to the Democrat party. That should be worth something!
What is the point of "censoring" testimony for the jury if it is made public? Are the jury members legally prohibited from reading the news or watching a podcast such as yours? If not, they can find out about this info all over Twitter and TH-cam anyway.
Jurors are prohibited from watching any news or social media on the trial and the topic of the trial. They are given clear instructions on this and are reminded of it regularly. Jurors typically take their role very seriously and adhere to that rule. If it is discovered a juror broke those rules a mistrial is declared.
@@LydiaSnider interesting. Not sure how practical this is in the day of social media. Maybe your friend posts something on Facebook. Or it is just on the news or wherever and you get wind of it inadvertently. But got it thanks
Jury are supposed to not look at new/internet. Think of if all mainstream media hated the defendant because of his views, and they effectively "poisoned the well" even if he was innocent and the court proceedings were favorable to him. The point of a jury is that it's 12-16 normal people who don't know anything about the problem and who can listen to both sides without biases( hating or loving) towards one side or another. Usually at the start of every day the judge will ask the jury if they have been on social media, talked to people( including family) and watched TV, if a jury member says they have the judge and lawyers will grill them on what they've been exposed to and if it's relevant to the case they'll toss that jury member and sub in one of the 3-4 spare jury members.
@@cryptolystagreed. I have posted about the case on Facebook. I wonder how many jurors even know what crypto cryptocurrency is. I wonder if it was asked during voir dire. I wonder if they weeded out jurors who did or did not know. Because if I was a juror, I'd have to go home every night researching it.
Vocal fry and filler words “right” “ I think” “I don’t think” and up-speak is obnoxious.
28
I'm the 11,111th viewer!
Slow down your speech,talking like a machine gun is not helpfull to people wanting info.
Sam your explanations on all counts is nothing short of exceptional. Thank you.
The jurry does NOT have to listen to the judge, google "jury nalification" ...just saying
i really🏩love sam enzer teaching us the rule of law