A Friday filing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) seeks to limit what prosecutors can use in the campaign-finance case involving Michelle Bond, the wife of former FTX Digital Markets co-CEO Ryan Salame.
Bond’s attorneys argued that evidence tied to Salame’s 2023 guilty plea—while relevant to his own conduct—should not be admitted against her because it carries a risk of unfair prejudice and, in their view, offers little direct proof of Bond’s knowledge or intent. The motion also asks the court to factor in details from Bond’s contemporaneous divorce and custody proceedings.
Key takeaways
- Michelle Bond wants the court to exclude evidence and “related plea materials” tied to Ryan Salame’s guilty plea, arguing they are not probative of her state of mind.
- Bond’s campaign-finance charges stem from allegations that contributions to her 2022 congressional bid were influenced by FTX-linked activity facilitated by Salame.
- The SDNY motion also requests inclusion of information about Bond’s divorce and custody proceedings, contending she was not an “ordinary” donor.
- Separately, the CFTC ordered former congressman George Santos to pay $35,000 in total—$17,500 in penalty and $17,570 in disgorgement—over trades connected to Kalshi prediction market event contracts.
- A soldier accused of making more than $400,000 on Polymarket event contracts linked to a military operation asked the SDNY court to dismiss charges, citing ambiguity in how “swap” definitions apply to event contracts under the Commodity Exchange Act.
Bond asks SDNY to keep Salame’s guilty plea out of her case
Bond faces campaign finance charges tied to her unsuccessful 2022 congressional run in New York. According to the criminal allegations, contributions to her campaign were partly funded through FTX-related channels that were facilitated by her husband, Ryan Salame.
In the latest SDNY filing, Bond’s legal team asked the court to preclude prosecutors from introducing Salame’s guilty plea and related plea materials. The filing points to the core logic of the request: Bond is not being tried for Salame’s admissions, and the defense claims the government’s use of those materials would not meaningfully establish Bond’s guilt, knowledge, or intent.
Bond’s attorneys argued that Salame’s plea is an admission of his own conduct, not evidence about Bond’s mental state or participation in the charged offense. They said the materials’ probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to Bond.
Prosecutors are expected to weigh heavily on the narrative connecting alleged campaign funding to the conduct of individuals tied to FTX’s collapse. Bond’s motion, however, signals an effort to narrow what jurors are allowed to consider—particularly evidence that may influence them emotionally or circumstantially rather than strictly proving the elements of the charges against her.
Why the defense is raising divorce and custody proceedings
Alongside the evidentiary dispute over Salame’s plea, Bond’s filing also requested that the court include information related to Bond’s divorce and custody proceedings that were underway around the same time as the alleged crime.
Bond’s lawyers’ position is that the circumstances of her family life affect how her campaign-related donor status should be viewed. The filing argues that Bond should not be treated as an ordinary individual donor solely because she is facing personal charges in connection with her political bid, even if she and Salame were not married at the time of the alleged conduct.
Whether and to what extent these family-law details will be admissible is likely to be a key procedural issue. It can shape the tone and framing of the case—especially if the government seeks to portray the campaign finances as closely connected to Salame’s network rather than to Bond’s independent circumstances.
George Santos ordered to pay over Kalshi predictions market trading
In a separate development involving prediction markets, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) ordered former New York representative George Santos—who was expelled from Congress in 2023—to pay a total of $35,000. The figure breaks down into a $17,500 civil monetary penalty and $17,570 in disgorgement of profits.
The regulator said the action was tied to Santos trading on event contracts on Kalshi connected to whether he would attend the 2026 State of the Union address in Washington, DC. The CFTC stated that Santos made social media posts about his plans to attend or not attend the event and that those posts contained “material misrepresentations and omissions.”
According to the CFTC, after the posts, the contract prices moved in a way that became favorable to Santos’ positions and allowed him to make more than $17,500.
As part of the same order, Santos was barred from trading on prediction market platforms for three years. The order also comes against the backdrop of criminal proceedings: Santos was sentenced to 87 months in prison for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in 2025, but served only three months before his sentence was commuted by U.S. President Donald Trump, as noted in earlier reporting.
Polymarket insider-trading allegations head toward dismissal arguments
Another SDNY filing, this time from the defense of Gannon Ken Van Dyke, challenges the legal foundation of allegations that he profited from Polymarket event contracts using nonpublic information.
The U.S. Justice Department says Van Dyke was involved in a military operation connected to the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January, and prosecutors allege he later used insider information to bet whether Maduro would be removed from power—leading to criminal charges announced in April. The defense filing argues Van Dyke is facing accusations involving more than $400,000 in alleged profits from Polymarket event contracts.
Van Dyke’s attorneys filed a 51-page memo supporting a motion to dismiss the indictment based on multiple legal theories. One focus is the Commodity Exchange Act’s treatment of event contracts as “swaps,” which the defense characterizes as ambiguous.
While the CFTC under Chair Michael Selig has asserted that the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets by treating event contracts as “swaps,” Van Dyke’s lawyers say the uncertainty itself is enough to dismiss at least some charges. In the filing, they argue that if lawmakers, executive agencies, and courts consider the “swap” definition ambiguous, then ordinary citizens cannot reasonably have fair notice that prediction market wagers fall under the CEA.
The case is expected to proceed on a timeline that could lead to trial in late 2026 or early 2027, based on a schedule submitted in June, and Van Dyke has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The defense’s arguments also extend beyond Van Dyke’s personal exposure. The filing suggests the ruling could matter for lawmakers and government officials who have used prediction markets in connection with political events or public statements. Earlier coverage referenced by the filing indicates that Trump’s teleprompter operator reportedly placed more than $100,000 in bets on Kalshi event contracts tied to presidential speeches, underscoring how prediction markets can draw interest from political circles.
Across these cases, courts are being asked to decide what evidence is fair game, what definitions govern crypto-adjacent instruments, and how much clarity regulators must provide before individuals can be held criminally liable—issues that could determine how future crypto and prediction-market enforcement plays out.
Be the first to comment