Summary of the Article
- Sam Bankman-Fried’s lawyers are attempting to quash a subpoena issued by Voyager Digital, claiming that it is procedurally deficient and potentially violates Bankman-Fried’s Fifth Amendment rights.
- The subpoena was served on his mother, Barbara Fried, rather than Bankman-Fried himself.
- Lawyers for Voyager’s creditors are looking into the attempt of FTX exchange (which was run by Bankman-Fried) to bail out the crypto lender when it filed for bankruptcy protection in July.
Bankman-Fried’s Lawyers Move To Quash Subpoena
Sam Bankman-Fried’s lawyers have moved to quash a subpoena issued by Voyager Digital. The subpoena was intended for Bankman-Fried but served on his mother, Barbara Fried. The attorneys claim that this is procedurally deficient and presents an undue burden as well as potentially violating Bankman-Fried’s Fifth Amendment rights.
Voyager Creditors Investigating Attempt To Bail Out Crypto Lender
Voyager Digital’s creditors are investigating an attempt made by the FTX exchange (which was run by Sam Bankman-Fried) to bail out crypto lender Voyager Digital when it declared bankruptcy protection in July. The specific type of subpoena used is called a Rule 45 subpoena which requires documents for inspection and copying from the named individual. Substitute service is not permitted with this type of subpoena.
Subpoena Places Undue Burden On Bankman-Fried
The filing states that the subpoenas places an undue burden on Sam Bankman-Fried as it gives him only one business day to produce 49 separate documents and only four days notice of appearance. Compliance with this could also violate his Fifth Amendment rights under U.S Constitution which protects against self incrimination as all requests call for documents relevant to criminal case where loans from/to Alameda are at stake.
„Procedurally Deficient“ Subpoena Moves To Be Quashed
In response, Sam Bankman- Friedman’s legal counsel believes that leaving the said subpoena in possession of Barbara Fried does not satisfy the Rule 45 requirement for personal service thus making it „procedurally deficient“. They further add that substitute service is generally not permitted to serve Rule 45 subpoenas either; hence they ask for these proceedings be quashed immediately due its inability to meet procedural requirements, placing undue burden and potential violation of Fifth Amendment rights.