Sam Bankman-Fried Asks Supreme Court to Overturn FTX Conviction

Sam Bankman-Fried has asked the US Supreme Court to overturn his fraud conviction and grant him a new trial, challenging evidentiary decisions that helped secure his 25-year prison sentence.

The former FTX chief also wants the court to strike down an approximately $11 billion forfeiture order, which his lawyers claim violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines.

A federal jury convicted Bankman-Fried in 2023 on seven counts of fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering.

Prosecutors accused him of secretly transferring billions of dollars in FTX customer funds to Alameda Research, where the trading firm used the money for investments, loan repayments, political donations, real estate and personal expenses.

The Supreme Court must first agree to hear the case before considering Bankman-Fried’s arguments. Filing the petition does not suspend his sentence or overturn the lower courts’ decisions.

Try Our Recommended Crypto Exchanges

Bankman-Fried Seeks New Trial Over Loss Evidence

Bankman-Fried’s petition centers on how the trial court handled evidence concerning losses suffered by FTX customers.

His lawyers argue that prosecutors presented evidence suggesting customers had lost billions while the court prevented the defense from demonstrating that FTX and Alameda held assets that could eventually cover those losses.

The petition describes the two companies as “temporarily illiquid” and claims they always held enough valuable assets to make customers whole.

So @SBF_FTX just filed for cert at SCOTUS

We know the outcome (enjoy serving the rest of your 25, Sam) but I am curious about one thing:

Who's paying for these pricey appeals? Are they being funded from the $10M of customer money that Sam gave his dad? pic.twitter.com/DjJSpWRk0X

— Jeff Roberts (@jeffjohnroberts) September 10, 2026

It also points to subsequent bankruptcy distributions, through which eligible creditors have received repayments with interest.

Veteran Supreme Court attorney Jeffrey Fisher said prosecutors pursued a fraud theory that did not require proof of an ultimate financial loss. Under those circumstances, he argued, evidence suggesting that customers lost money unfairly prejudiced the jury.

Bankman-Fried’s lawyers contend that the court should either have excluded the government’s loss evidence or allowed the defense to present evidence pointing toward eventual repayment.

Prosecutors, however, maintained that Bankman-Fried committed fraud when he transferred customer assets to Alameda without authorization, regardless of whether those investments later gained value.

Supreme Court Ruling Complicates His Appeal

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected Bankman-Fried’s arguments in June and upheld his conviction, sentence and forfeiture order.

Its decision relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Kousisis v. United States. That case involved contractors who used false certifications to obtain a government bridge-painting contract while failing to meet requirements related to disadvantaged businesses.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a material deception designed to obtain money or property could support a federal fraud conviction even when the defendant did not intend to inflict net economic harm.

Applying that precedent, the Second Circuit concluded that Bankman-Fried’s belief that FTX customers could eventually recover their money did not provide a defense.

Customers had not authorized FTX to transfer their deposits to Alameda or use them for other purposes.

Bankman-Fried now raises a narrower question: If prosecutors did not need to prove financial losses, should they have introduced evidence about those losses at trial?

$11 Billion Forfeiture Faces Constitutional Challenge

The petition separately challenges the $11 billion forfeiture imposed as part of Bankman-Fried’s sentence.

His lawyers argue that the amount bears no reasonable relationship to remaining customer losses and violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.

They also claim the judgment could prevent Bankman-Fried from earning a living after his release.

The Second Circuit previously rejected that argument. It ruled that federal forfeiture law calculates financial penalties based on proceeds connected to criminal conduct rather than only on the losses victims ultimately retain.

Bankman-Fried must now persuade at least four of the nine Supreme Court justices to hear his appeal. The court is expected to decide later this year whether to review the case, but it has not yet considered the merits of his claims.

Sam Bankman-Fried Asks Supreme Court to Overturn FTX Conviction

Bankman-Fried Seeks New Trial Over Loss Evidence

Supreme Court Ruling Complicates His Appeal

$11 Billion Forfeiture Faces Constitutional Challenge

Related