SBF Gets A Test Of Life In The 2000s With Internetless Phone -

Join Our Telegram channel to stay up to date on breaking news coverage

The former CEO and FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) may be stuck using an internetless phone for an unknown period. In a court filing on March 3, it shows the U.S. Department of Justice proposed bail conditions for SBF.

Sam Bankman-Fried communication should be restricted to a flip phone or other non-smartphone device with no internet access. https://t.co/NfD1M9Q3vZ

— Cointelegraph (@Cointelegraph) March 4, 2023

In a proposal submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Lewis Kaplan, the terms indicate that SBF should be forbidden from using tablets, smartphones, or any video game platform or device that enables chat and voice communication. Additionally, the proposal restricts his communication to “a flip phone or other non-smartphone with either internet disabled or no internet capabilities.” On the other hand, all communication functions on the phone will be limited to SMS text messages and voice calls.

However, the temporary document made by Damian Williams on ”behalf of all parties” requests that the recent imposed temporary bail conditions, should be made permanent. Some temporary conditions include no communication or contact with former or current FTX or Alameda Research employees. Notably, SBF is prohibited from using any encrypted or ephemeral call or applications, including Signal, unless a lawyer is present.

Additionally, Sam Bankman-Fried’s website access is restricted to an allowlist of pre-approved pages, including Netflix, YouTube, NFL, Etherscan, and government websites. Notably, he is limited to news websites access. Some of the sites he could visit include Forbes and Reuters, among others, to enable him prepare for his trial scheduled on October 2.

The proposal stipulates:

The defendant will not object to the installation of court-authorized pen registers on SBF’s phone number, Gmail account, and internet service. Those pen register orders will be sought by the government and maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

SBF’s previous attempt to contact FTX US, general counsel

At the year’s commencement, SBF allegedly attempted to contact the general counsel of the FTX.US subsidiary through Signal. According to a New York Times report, the communication was suggestive of an endeavor to influence the potential witness’s testimony. One of the messages read:

I would love to reconnect and see if we can have a constructive relationship and use each other as resources when possible. Or at least vet things with each other.

However, as per the Justice Department, they allege that SBF tried contacting the new CEO of the FTX platform, John Ray, and the general counsel of FTX US.

SBF parent’s affidavit

Notably, on a February 16 hearing, Kaplan signaled that he might jail SBF for testing the limits of his $250 million bail package. This occurred when SBF attempted to communicate in ways that could not be monitored. However, Judge Kaplan noted that he did not want to set Mr. Bankman “loose in this garden of electronic devices.” SBF got banned from using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) last month, after his attorneys noted that he used one to watch a football game.

Noteworthy, Mr. Bankman pled not guilty after prosecutors alleged that he stole billions of customer funds from FTX to plug losses in the Alameda Research trading firm. In an indictment made public on February 23, SBF faces 12 criminal charges, including eight conspiracy charges related to fraud and four securities and wire charges. However, if found guilty, he will be sentenced up to 115 years in prison.

SBF lives under house arrest with his parents in Palo Alto, California. Noteworthy, his parents agreed to submit an affidavit noting that they would not allow their son to use their electronic devices or bring others (electronic devices) at home. Additionally, the letter indicated that SBF’s parents agreed that each device would carry software that takes videos or photos of the user. It is worth noting that only the court would review the taken images and videos.