Legal Battle Over Implied Agreement in Salame Plea Deal Could Decide Bond's Fate

The plea deal struck by former FTX Digital Markets co-CEO Ryan Salame in 2023 has become a focal point in the legal proceedings against his partner, Michelle Bond, as her upcoming evidentiary hearing on September 25, 2025, could hinge on the validity of the agreement. Salame, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to make unlawful political contributions and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, is currently serving a 7.5-year prison sentence. His guilty plea, however, has been called into question by his legal team, which alleges that prosecutors breached an implied agreement to cease investigations into Bond for campaign finance violationstitle1^[1]. Bond, charged with conspiracy to cause unlawful campaign contributions and other related offenses, faces up to 20 years in prisontitle2^[2].

Salame’s legal team argues that his plea deal was contingent on the government dropping its probe into Bond, who allegedly used $400,000 in funds from a “sham consulting agreement” with FTX to finance her 2022 congressional campaigntitle3^[3]. Prosecutors, however, have dismissed these claims as “factually baseless and legally meritless,” asserting that Salame was explicitly informed in 2023 that his agreement did not preclude investigations into Bondtitle4^[4]. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York has also emphasized that Salame’s cooperation did not extend to shielding Bond from legal scrutinytitle5^[5].

The controversy has led to a contentious legal battle over whether Bond can testify in the evidentiary hearing. Prosecutors initially opposed her testimony, arguing it would be irrelevant to Salame’s plea agreementtitle6^[6]. However, Bond’s attorneys countered that her and Salame’s state of mind during the plea negotiations is directly relevant to the court’s determination of the agreement’s validitytitle7^[7]. The defense has also requested that former Assistant U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon, who led the case against FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, testify about any promises made to Salametitle8^[8]. Sassoon’s involvement adds a layer of complexity, as she resigned in 2024 amid a separate controversy over the Justice Department’s handling of a case against New York City Mayor Eric Adamstitle9^[9].

The evidentiary hearing, set for September 25, marks the first time Bond will return to court since her August 2024 indictment. Salame, who initially sought to vacate his guilty plea, has since dropped the motion, stating he no longer pursues ittitle10^[10]. Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over Salame’s sentencing, has reserved judgment on the matter but has emphasized that Salame’s false testimony during his plea hearing could lead to unspecified sanctionstitle11^[11]. The court’s decision on whether to allow Bond’s testimony could influence the broader legal strategy, as her lawyers argue her credibility and the plea deal’s terms are critical to the casetitle12^[12].

The case underscores the intersection of plea bargains and ongoing investigations in high-profile financial crimes. Prosecutors have highlighted that Salame’s plea deal was structured independently of Bond’s legal situation, a stance reinforced by contemporaneous notes from 2023 meetings between defense attorneys and the U.S. Attorney’s Officetitle13^[13]. Meanwhile, Salame’s post-sentencing activism on social media, including critiques of the justice system, has further complicated his credibility in the eyes of the courttitle14^[14]. As the evidentiary hearing approaches, the outcome may set a precedent for how courts assess the interplay between plea agreements and third-party legal consequences in complex financial fraud casestitle15^[15].