Ryan Salame: Former FTX Executive Accuses US Government of Breaching Plea Agreement
Ryan Salame, a former executive at FTX, is accusing the US government of not abiding by the terms of a plea agreement that was intended to end an investigation into his partner Michelle Bond, the CEO of think tank ADAM. Salame claims that the government, despite the agreement, resumed the investigation into Bond, thus violating the initially agreed-upon terms.
Salame is now asking the court to compel the government to honor the agreement, either by dropping the investigation into Bond or by vacating his own conviction. He asserts that the government used the plea negotiations as a means of unfair coercion.
Ryan Salame, an ex-FTX executive, has once again found himself embroiled in a legal battle against the US government.
In a recent filing, Salame’s lawyers accuse the government of not complying with the terms of a previously reached plea agreement.
In response to this situation, Salame publicly expressed his discontent on the social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter), stating that he hopes his filing will “encourage more people to be honest, tell the truth, and expose un-American tactics.”
The Context: Contested Plea Agreement
Ryan Salame, who was sentenced in 2023 to 7.5 years in prison for campaign finance violations and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, argues that the government failed to fulfill its obligations under the plea agreement.
The agreement was supposed to put an end to an investigation into Salame’s long-term partner, Michelle Bond, the CEO of fintech think tank ADAM. Bond, who also ran as a Republican candidate for Congress in 2022, is believed to have engaged in campaign finance violations, in which Salame and others allegedly contributed.
According to the terms of the agreement, the government would have dropped any ongoing investigation into Bond in exchange for Salame’s cooperation and guilty plea. However, Salame’s lawyers claim that the investigation into Bond resumed in violation of these assurances, which they consider to be a blatant breach of the initial agreement.
A Defense Strategy Based on Government’s Commitment
In their complaint, Salame’s lawyers argue that their client pleaded guilty due to implicit promises made by prosecutors, promises that they claim were not upheld. They assert that the government used the plea negotiations as leverage to shield Bond from legal action, by threatening to continue the investigation if Salame did not cooperate.
The filed document states that “the government used the plea negotiations to threaten Salame’s domestic partner and mother of his child, Michelle Bond,” adding that “the government made it clear it would end the investigation into Bond if Salame pleaded guilty.”
The Consequences of the Alleged Breach of the Agreement
Salame’s lawyers are now requesting the court to compel the government to honor its initial commitment. In other words, they want the investigation into Bond to be dropped or Salame’s conviction to be vacated. According to them, if the government fails to honor its obligations, Salame should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, or obtain an order forcing the government to fulfill its promises.
