In the weeks after Sam Bankman-Fried’s FTX crypto trade started to crumble final November, he selected to disregard probably the most fundamental piece of authorized recommendation: Say nothing, or threat incriminating your self. He took media interviews. He appeared on podcasts. He tweeted incessantly. He started his own Substack. He promised to testify in entrance of Congress, although he was arrested earlier than he bought the prospect.

Starting as we speak, Bankman-Fried will stand trial in a New York court docket, accused of seven separate counts of fraud towards clients, buyers, and lenders. FTX collapsed after customers tried to withdraw their cash from the trade however have been unable to as a result of, the Department of Justice alleges, Bankman-Fried had funneled the cash right into a sibling enterprise, Alameda Research, the place it was spent on high-risk crypto trades, debt repayments, private loans, luxurious purchases, and different firm bills.

The trial, whose consequence will imply little for crypto companies or the individuals who misplaced cash in FTX, has already garnered loads of public consideration. The prosecution’s witnesses will embrace victims of the trade’s collapse and Bankman-Fried’s one-time paramour, former Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison. It could seem intuitive that Bankman-Fried, the protagonist, ought to have a talking position. But his legal professionals may nicely advise him to plead the Fifth Amendment and decline to testify.

In his public appearances earlier than his arrest, Bankman-Fried characterised the state of affairs as one huge mistake. There was negligence, he admits, however no legal intent to defraud. But his makes an attempt to elucidate away the allegations may create complications for his authorized group in court docket. As the protection, the target is to “create an immaculate narrative,” says Jason Allegrante, chief authorized officer at crypto custody agency Fireblocks, to “present the best narrative the facts will support.” But when Bankman-Fried started “defending himself in the media and court of public opinion,” he risked “introducing into the public record a lot of information and material that can be used against him.”

As the trial progresses, Bankman-Fried’s protection group might want to take those self same dangers into consideration in deciding who to position on the stand.

Bankman-Fried’s trial will final 4 to 6 weeks. First, the prosecution will lay out its case, calling all its witnesses—from FTX clients to buyers to alleged “coconspirators.” Then the protection will select easy methods to reply. Under the US justice system, the prosecution should show guilt past an inexpensive doubt. Therefore, a viable protection technique, says Jordan Estes, associate at regulation agency Kramer Levin, is to “just poke holes in the government’s case” and decline to supply up any extra witnesses.

Whether Bankman-Fried takes the stand or not will solely be determined, says Estes, as soon as the energy of the prosecution’s case turns into clear. He is under no circumstances required to testify. “It’s his decision. We’ll just have to wait and see,” she says. “If the government’s case isn’t going well—if they call witnesses that don’t appear very credible or the cross-examination goes terribly—there’s a possibility the defense will feel it doesn’t need to do anything.”

In any legal case, the choice to place the defendant on the stand is a “high-stakes moment,” says Allegrante. Doing so exposes them to questioning by the prosecution that they might in any other case keep away from, but in addition to the way in which particular jurors may interpret their testimony. It introduces extra variables to an setting the protection hopes to fastidiously management.