Experts say that the neurodivergence of Sam Bankman-Fried was crucial in trial issues
Sam Bankman-Fried’s criminal trial may have been seriously disrupted by his neurodivergence, resulting in misinterpretation that influenced the result. In support of Sam Bankman-Fried’s appeal, doctors specializing in neurodivergent diseases submitted an amicus brief contending that the court and jury could have misconstrued his conduct, mostly shaped by autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Diagnosed with ASD and ADHD, the FTX co-founder had great trouble during the experiment. The physicians noted that various decisions against him, namely allowing government prosecutors to examine Bankman-Fried without a jury present, disfavor him. Long, thorough answers resulting from this annoyed the court as persons with ASD often perceive language literally and look for clarity in communication.
The physicians claim that this misinterpretation was clear-cut when Bankman-Fried changed his answers in front of the jury after the judge chastised him for his long remarks. His later quick, one-word responses—often simply a “Yup”—may have been misconstrued by the jury as arrogance or apathy, therefore affecting their impression of him.
Lack of access to important FTX records as well as the correct dose of ADHD medication was another major problem. The physicians clarified that people with ASD generally anchor their statements on specific paperwork, so the lack of these materials probably made Bankman-Fried seem vague or evasive during interrogation. Moreover, the withholding of sufficient ADHD medication seriously compromised his attention and diminished his capacity to defend himself, particularly in the first three weeks of the trial.
The experts underlined that giving the right medicine may have helped him perform better throughout the study; without it, he would have suffered with withdrawal symptoms that further affected his focus.
Apart from the physicians’ brief, other academics of bankruptcy law also expressed reservations about the running of the trial. They alerted others about the cross-over between Bankman-Fried’s criminal prosecution and the FTX bankruptcy case. The scholars contended that by supporting criminal charges via Chapter 11 procedures, the great collaboration between the FTX bankruptcy estate and the prosecutors may perhaps create a hazardous precedent.
The fast speed of the trial was another point of contention for the professors, who said it caused jurors to mistakenly assume FTX consumers would be compensated nothing. But as late May, the FTX estate had verified that there were sufficient assets to pay back creditors—possibly with compensation in billions of dollars.
Although Sam Bankman-Fried was sentenced 25 years for his $11 billion scam of FTX consumers, fresh files show the possible influence of his neurodiversity on the trial.
