Golden Finance reported that U.S. prosecutors reiterated on Wednesday that the existing legal framework is sufficient to charge SBF with fraud-related violations. The DOJ said that while the existence of the law may be relevant to establishing a statutory duty of care, the lack of supervision has nothing to do with whether the victim entrusted the money to the defendant for safekeeping. "Evidence" or arguments about the lack of supervision will only confuse the jury and make them believe that there must be a provision to impose liability for the misappropriation that occurred, and the court should dismiss SBF's request for reconsideration of the previous grant to prevent him from providing evidence about asset recovery in the FTX bankruptcy proceedings. Another point of contention is whether SBF can show his "previous good deeds", such as charitable donations and philanthropy. In a document filed on Wednesday, the DOJ responded that it did not object to his providing acceptable evidence about charitable activities, "as long as the evidence is for appropriate purposes, including not for propensity or character purposes."