Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Hires Lawyer Representing Sam Bankman-Fried

After both men were moved to the same area of a Brooklyn jail, Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs has now hired the same lawyer who is representing Sam Bankman-Fried. Indeed, a new Business Insider reported Combs’ change in litigation as he is set to appeal the decision to jail him as his trial awaits.

Combs is currently awaiting a hearing regarding sex trafficking charges. Moreover, his stay in the New York Metropolitan Detention Center has seen him housed in the same unit as the FTX founder and former CEO. Now, they are both set to share representation in the form of Alexandra Shapiro.

Also Read: Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Moved to Same New York Jail as Sam Bankman-Fried

Diddy Combs Hires Sam Bankman-Fried’s Lawyer Ahead of Appeal

The crypto market has yet to see a controversy as massive as the downfall of FTX. One of the largest financial crimes in the history of the United States, it saw the largest cryptocurrency exchange platform in the industry plummet. Moreover, one of its brightest faces was found to be one of the country’s most notorious fraudsters.

Now, amid his ongoing prison stay, two of the most notorious criminals are set to have common representation. Indeed, Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs has hired the same lawyer who is representing Sam Bankman-Fried. The news arrives just days after the two were moved to the same area of a New York prison.

Also Read: Sam Bankman-Fried’s Ex-Girlfriend Sentenced to 2 Years in Prison

Diddy is in the process of appealing the decision to have him laced in jail while his trial nears. Court filings now show that he has enlisted the services of Alexandra Shpaira. The white-collar lawyer is well-experienced and was the clerk for the notable former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Shapiro will also be the lawyer looking to help Bankman-Fried during his own appeal. The FTX founder was sentenced to 25 years in prison for fraud and money laundering charges. Shapiro most recently filed a 102-page brief with the Court of Appeals. She states that the case excluded key information that would have benefited the fraudster’s defense.