Die New York Times verteidigt ihren Artikel über Ellison

• The New York Times officials argued that Ellison’s role in the FTX saga made her a person of interest to the public.
• Das Medienunternehmen forderte das Gericht auf, die Rechte des Ersten Verfassungszusatzes zu wahren und den Zugang zu Informationen über den Fall zu ermöglichen.
• Staatsanwälte beschuldigten Bankman-Fried kürzlich der Zeugenmanipulation.

---

Die Medienorganisation The New York Times hat ihre virale Verbreitung verteidigt Stück über die frühere CEO von Alameda Research, Caroline Ellison, was die Staatsanwälte behaupten Manipulation with the ongoing case. However, the news outlet defended its article, claiming the media and the public deserved significant information on a “central participant in a financial scheme that defrauded investors of billions of dollars.”

In einer Einreichung an das Gericht, das sich mit dem Bankman-Fried-Fall befasst, forderte die New York Times das Gericht auf, den Ersten Verfassungszusatz aufrechtzuerhalten und Schlüsselpersonen, die an dem Fall beteiligt waren, Zugang zu gewähren. Das Unternehmen äußerte Bedenken hinsichtlich eines Schweigebefehls, der es der 31-jährigen Bankman-Fried verbietet, Einzelheiten des Falles an Medienorganisationen weiterzugeben.

Prosecutors had previously accused the FTX founder of sharing documents with a New York Times reporter, which was used in a piece about Ellison, who, aside from working as Bankman-Fried’s colleague, was also his lover.

I don't think I've ever seen this before. The New York Times just submitted a letter to the court in Sam Bankman-Fried's case about why he was fine to share Caroline Ellison's diary entries with them and why the Judge shouldn't revoke bail and detain him now:

"While the current… pic.twitter.com/IV5InzDhxV

— Zack Guzmán (@zGuz) 3. August 2023

The New York Times piece shared insight into some of Ellison’s private journals, where she wrote about her conflicting emotions about working at Alameda Research and her complicated relationship with Bankman-Fried.

The company’s vice president and deputy general counsel David McCraw argued that Bankman-Fried was not a lawyer, which meant that he was subjected to less strict gag orders than would have applied to a lawyer.

McCraw wrote that “while the current round of motion practice was prompted by a Times article about Caroline Ellison, and the Government argues that the article was part of the defendant’s effort to interfere with the trial, that overlooks the public’s legitimate interest—independent of this prosecution—in Ms. Ellison and her activities at her cryptocurrency trading firm.”

McCraw argued that Ellison has “confessed to being a central participant in a financial scheme that defrauded investors of billions of dollars—a scheme that was not detected by government regulators and law enforcement agencies until the public’s money had disappeared.”

McCraw also claimed that Elison’s role in the FTX scandal made her one of the primary figures of interest to the public, who would want access to information about her.

The New York Times’ filing comes as prosecutors demand that Judge Kaplan revoke Bankman-Fried’s bail term. Although prosecutors recently dropped a charge related to campaign finance fraud, Bankman-Fried is still facing 12 other counts.

Neuesten Nachrichten