Il New York Times difende il suo articolo su Ellison

• The New York Times officials argued that Ellison’s role in the FTX saga made her a person of interest to the public.
• Il media ha esortato la corte a sostenere i diritti del Primo Emendamento consentendo l'accesso alle informazioni sul caso.
• I pubblici ministeri hanno recentemente accusato Bankman-Fried di manomissione dei testimoni.

---

L'organizzazione dei media The New York Times ha difeso il suo virale pezzo sull'ex amministratore delegato di Alameda Research Caroline Ellison, che secondo i pubblici ministeri potrebbe manomettere 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 un deposito al tribunale che si occupa del caso Bankman-Fried, il New York Times ha esortato il tribunale a sostenere il Primo Emendamento consentendo l'accesso alle persone chiave coinvolte nel caso. La società ha espresso preoccupazione per un ordine di silenzio che vieta al 31enne Bankman-Fried di condividere i dettagli del caso con le organizzazioni dei media.

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 agosto 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.

Ultime notizie