Prosecutors have asked a judge to repeal SBF’s bail, contending he attempted to harass a key witness in his fraud case

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried is returning to New York City for a court hearing Friday that could decide whether he must go to jail while he awaits trial.

Prosecutors have asked a judge to repeal SBF’s bail, contending he attempted to harass a key witness in his fraud case. His lawyers insist he should not be jailed for trying to safeguard his reputation against a flurry of adverse news stories.

Bankman-Fried has been under house arrest at his parents’ home since his deportation from the Bahamas in December on charges that he deceived investors in his businesses and unlawfully redirected millions of dollars’ worth of crypto currency from customers using his FTX exchange.

SBF’s $250 million bail package limits his internet and phone usage.

Two weeks back, prosecutors surprised SBF’s attorneys by demanding his detention, saying he breached those rules by giving The New York Times the private writings of Caroline Ellison, his ex-girlfriend and the former Chief Executive Officer of Alameda Research, a crypto currency trading hedge fund that was one of his businesses.

Prosecutors maintained he was trying to tarnish her reputation and influence prospective jurors who might be summoned for his October trial.

Ellison pleaded guilty in December to criminal charges carrying a potential penalty of 110 years in prison. Ellison has agreed to testify against SBF as part of a deal that could result in a more moderate sentence.

SBF’s lawyers claimed he probably failed in a pursuit to safeguard his reputation because the article cast Ellison in a sympathetic light. They also said prosecutors overemphasised the role SBF had in the article.

The lawyers stated prosecutors were trying to get their client locked up by providing evidence consisting of “innuendo, speculation, and scant facts.”

Since prosecutors made their detention request, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan has imposed a gag order barring public comments by people taking part in the trial, including SBF.

David McCraw, a lawyer for the Times, has written to the judge, noting the First Amendment implications of any blanket gag order, as well as public interest in Ellison and her crypto currency trading company.

Ellison admitted to a vital role in a scheme deceiving investors of billions of dollars that went undetected, he stated.

It is not surprising that the public wants to know more about who she is and what she did and that news organizations would seek to provide to the public timely, pertinent, and fairly reported information about her, as The Times did in its story, he added.