TL;DR
- Former FTX executive Ryan Salame claims the DOJ targeted him politically and coerced his guilty plea by threatening his fiancée.
- He alleges the prosecution ignored exculpatory evidence and that his charges stemmed from his Republican campaign donations.
- His fiancée, Michelle Bond, now faces charges he says prosecutors had promised to drop in exchange for his plea.
Ryan Salame, former FTX executive, now serves 90 months at FCI Cumberland and publishes a detailed account on X. He alleges that the Department of Justice (DOJ) pursued him for political reasons, ignored exculpatory material, and pushed him to plead guilty by threatening his pregnant fiancée, Michelle Bond. He writes that prosecutors “picked people, not crimes,” and favored figures tied to Democratic fundraising while pursuing him for Republican donations.
Salame outlines a narrative of uneven treatment. He says he provided loan documents tied to Alameda Research, legal opinions, and tax advice that, in his view, validated transactions cited in the case. He also points to his personal wealth as evidence against any need for “straw donor” schemes.
The message seeks to redirect attention from headlines toward process: who received offers, how negotiations unfolded, and why certain evidence never received airtime in court filings.
Allegations against prosecutors and active disputes
A central claim targets Assistant U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon, who, according to Salame, linked plea talks to the fate of Bond. He says he prepared for trial, then faced a demand: accept guilt and prosecutors would drop a probe into Bond.
Later, prosecutors indicted Bond over campaign finance conduct tied to her 2022 run. Bond has entered a not-guilty plea and argues that the government broke assurances while extracting Salame’s agreement.
Judge Lewis Kaplan imposed 90 months, exceeding the five to seven years proposed by the government. Salame highlights a $23 million spend on Republican campaigns during the midterms to support his claim that politics colored charging decisions.
Defense filings, according to his account, described loans from Alameda as papered by counsel and reviewed by tax advisers, while plea discussions centered on leverage over Bond. He frames that leverage as the decisive factor that pushed him to fold.
Salame also questions the handling of witnesses and documents, arguing that prosecutors shut doors on testimony favorable to his defense. He casts plea bargaining as a pressure chamber where family risk outweighs litigation ideals. The account describes a negotiation timeline that, in his telling, never granted equal footing and never allowed a fair hearing on the documentary trail around Alameda loans and campaign payments.
Bond’s case adds another front. Prosecutors cite a $400,000 payment linked to FTX and allege false statements to Congress and others. Bond’s team replies that the government used implied assurances to secure a plea from Salame, then reversed course.
For now, Salame advances an aggressive public stance: he portrays the conviction as a product of pressure, not proof. Courts may yet examine parts of the narrative if defense teams seek records or testimony tied to plea talks. Until then, his account fuels a larger argument over consistency in high-profile financial prosecutions and the line between hard bargaining and coercion.
