Prosecutors in Sam Bankman-Fried trial compare defense argument to ‘Dumb and Dumber’
In the case of Sam Bankman-Fried versus the Securities and Exchange Commission, prosecutors have compared the defense argument to “Dumb and Dumber”. They stated that the defense argument was a case of “two wrongs don’t make a right”: trying to claim Bankman-Fried was not involved in a fraudulent scheme on the basis of his “good intentions” was simply illogical and was akin to the foolishness of characters in the 1990s comedy. Prosecutors argued that Bankman-Fried had the necessary intent to commit fraud and that his lack of actual financial gain from the scheme was irrelevant. The defense argued that Bankman-Fried was claiming good faith and that the scheme was not fraudulent, a position they clearly found ridiculous.