Sam Bankman-Fried, the disgraced co-founder and former CEO of collapsed crypto exchange FTX, has filed a motion seeking a new criminal trial in the Southern District of New York, mounting a fresh legal challenge while already serving a 25-year federal prison sentence for fraud and conspiracy.
The motion, submitted under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, was filed pro se, meaning Bankman-Fried prepared it himself from prison.
Although dated February 5, the filing was entered on the Manhattan federal court docket days later. The request runs parallel to—and is legally separate from—the ongoing appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
According to the filing, Bankman-Fried argues that newly available testimony from former FTX executives could undermine the government’s core narrative that he intentionally defrauded customers and that the exchange was insolvent prior to its dramatic collapse in late 2022.
Key Takeaways
- Filed a Rule 33 motion seeking a new trial, arguing that previously unheard testimony from former FTX executives could challenge the prosecution’s fraud narrative.
- Alleged judicial bias by asking for Judge Lewis Kaplan’s recusal, citing evidentiary rulings that he claims limited his defense.
- Maintained that FTX and FTX.US were solvent prior to collapse, accusing lawyers and prosecutors of misrepresenting the company’s financial state.
- Continues to pursue parallel legal paths, with a Second Circuit appeal pending and public discussion around an unlikely presidential pardon.
Claiming New Witnesses Could Change the Outcome
Central to Bankman-Fried’s request is the assertion that two former senior FTX figures—Daniel Chapsky and Ryan Salame—did not testify at trial but could now offer evidence contradicting the prosecution’s portrayal of FTX’s financial condition.
In a sworn declaration attached to the motion, Chapsky, the former head of data science at FTX.US, said he could have challenged government testimony related to internal balance sheets and transfers between FTX and its affiliated hedge fund, Alameda Research.
He stated that legal counsel advised him against testifying due to fears of government retaliation and intense public scrutiny.
Salame, a former FTX executive who later pleaded guilty in a related case and received a seven-and-a-half-year sentence, was also cited by Bankman-Fried as someone pressured by prosecutors. Bankman-Fried claimed the government leveraged threats against Salame’s pregnant fiancée to secure cooperation—an allegation prosecutors have denied.
Bankman-Fried further accused Nishad Singh, FTX’s former head of engineering and a key prosecution witness, of altering his testimony under government pressure. Singh pleaded guilty to fraud charges but avoided prison due to extensive cooperation.
Allegations of Judicial Bias
In addition to seeking a retrial, Bankman-Fried formally requested that U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan be removed from considering the motion.
He alleged that Kaplan demonstrated “manifest prejudice” during the original proceedings, citing evidentiary rulings that limited the defense’s ability to argue that customer funds could ultimately be repaid.
During the trial, Kaplan barred the defense from presenting certain evidence related to legal advice Bankman-Fried claimed to have received while running FTX. The judge also conducted an unusual pre-testimony hearing in which Bankman-Fried was questioned for hours outside the presence of the jury to determine what he would be allowed to say on the stand.
A jury ultimately convicted Bankman-Fried in November 2023 on seven counts of fraud and conspiracy, agreeing with prosecutors that billions of dollars in customer funds were improperly funneled from FTX to Alameda Research to cover risky trading losses.
Bankruptcy Dispute and Public Claims
Beyond the courtroom, Bankman-Fried has continued to contest the circumstances surrounding FTX’s bankruptcy. In recent posts on X, he claimed he never authorized the Chapter 11 filing and argued that external lawyers forced the company into bankruptcy despite internal data showing solvency, particularly at FTX.US.
“The money was always there, and FTX was always solvent,” Bankman-Fried wrote in one post, alleging that lawyers misrepresented the company’s financial state and seized control for their own benefit.
Court records from early 2023 confirm that Bankman-Fried objected to including FTX.US in the bankruptcy filing, arguing that its wallets showed no customer deficit at the time. Bankruptcy attorneys, however, maintained that consolidated filings were necessary and that internal controls across the group were deeply flawed.
Appeal Pending, Pardon Uncertain
Bankman-Fried’s formal appeal—argued before a three-judge Second Circuit panel in late 2025—remains undecided. Judges at the hearing appeared skeptical of claims that trial rulings alone warranted overturning the verdict.
His mother, Stanford Law Professor Emerita Barbara Fried, submitted the retrial motion on his behalf due to his incarceration, stating that her son wanted the brief written “in his own voice.” She also acknowledged the difficulty of coordinating legal strategy from prison.
Separately, Bankman-Fried and his family have explored the possibility of a presidential pardon. While President Donald Trump has issued pardons to several high-profile crypto executives, he has publicly stated that he has no intention of pardoning Bankman-Fried.
For now, the former crypto billionaire remains behind bars, pursuing multiple legal paths in a last-ditch effort to undo one of the most consequential fraud convictions in the history of digital assets.
