05-01-2026 
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A United States federal judge has denied a motion for a new trial filed by former CEO and co-founder of FTX, Sam Bankman-Fried, who is currently serving a 25-year prison sentence in connection with his role in the fraud that led to the collapse of the digital asset exchange FTX.
- Sam Bankman-Fried withdraws motion, cites bias
- The collapse that triggered a crypto winter
- Judge calls SBF evidence baseless
Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, who oversaw Bankman-Fried’s trial in 2023, wrote an order on Tuesday denying Bankman-Fried’s motion because the disgraced former FTX CEO failed to come up with “supposed evidence that he claims to have been newly discovered” in the time allotted.
Meanwhile, Kaplan said the government filed “an extensive and detailed opposition” to Bankman-Fried’s motion, which on its own “would suffice to express the agreement with the government’s entire response and simply deny the motion.”
In the motion, filed by Bankman-Fried in February without consulting his lawyers, the beleaguered former golden boy of crypto requested a new trial, to be overseen by a different judge. However, after two extensions to give him time to produce his supposed new evidence and respond to the government’s opposition filing, last Wednesday, Bankman-Fried wrote to Kaplan asking to withdraw his request, saying “I do not believe I will get a fair hearing on this topic in front of you.”
Kaplan denied this request and has now also denied the motion itself, saying that it “appears to be one part of a plan to rescue his reputation that Bankman-Fried hatched and even committed to writing after FTX declared bankruptcy but before he was indicted.”
Bankman-Fried’s motion for a new trial was lodged despite an appeal against his conviction, filed in April 2024, still pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
FTX downfall
Digital asset exchange FTX collapsed in November 2022 after revelations that customer funds had been misused by the company’s investment arm, Alameda Research, which had lost those funds in bad investments. FTX then attempted to plug the gaping hole in its balance sheet with its own illiquid FTT token. A loss of confidence triggered a “bank run,” exposing an $8 billion shortfall and forcing the bank into bankruptcy.
The failure contributed to the 2022 “crypto winter,” causing market contagion, bankruptcies, increased global regulatory scrutiny, and resulting in criminal charges.
As founder and CEO, Bankman-Fried was charged with “masterminding one of the largest financial frauds in American history.” Specifically, he was charged with two counts of wire fraud, two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and separate counts of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, commodities fraud, and money laundering.
His five-week jury trial in New York was notable for damning testimony from former associates turned state witnesses Nishad Singh and Caroline Ellison, as well as for Bankman-Fried’s own shambolic showing in court, where he repeatedly responded to prosecutors’ questions with variations on “I don’t remember” and “I don’t recall,” leading exasperated Assistant U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon to eventually ask “So, what do you recall?”
Almost inevitably, Bankman-Fried was convicted on all counts on November 2, 2023, with the jury taking only five hours to reach its decision, and the disgraced former CEO was sentenced principally to an aggregate of 300 months in prison.Motion for new trial denied
Bankman-Fried’s motion for a new trial was based on three supposedly “newly discovered” witnesses whose predicted testimony, he contended, warranted a new trial.
However, Kaplan stated in his order denying the motion that “this contention is baseless on multiple independently sufficient levels with regard to each of the witnesses for the reasons thoroughly demonstrated by the government’s memorandum.”
Firstly, according to the judge and the government, none of the witnesses was “newly discovered,” with one of them, Nishad Singh, having testified against Bankman-Fried at his trial.
“Bankman-Fried well before trial knew all three of them and purportedly knew also what he hoped they would say were they to testify,” said Kaplan. “He could have obtained or at least sought to compel their testimony. But he did neither. His assertion that their absence (or, in one case, the decision of the witness to testify against him) was a product of government threats and retaliation is wildly conspiratorial and entirely contradicted by the record.”
Bankman-Fried also sought a different judge, claiming that he would not get a fair trial under Kaplan. On this, the latter made clear that the former’s objections to him were not raised within the appropriate time after the initial trial.
According to procedure, requests for a change of judge must be made “at the earliest possible moment after obtaining knowledge of facts demonstrating the basis for such a claim.”
Unfortunately for Bankman-Fried, his motion was made almost two years after the entry of judgment, and he demonstrated “no cause whatsoever for the delay.” Therefore, Kaplan declared the recusal motion “presumptively untimely.”
Bankman-Fried will now have to wait on the results of his ongoing appeal, much of which appears to be hanging on the claim that 98% of all FTX creditors have received 120% of their investments plus interest.
Watch | Teranode explained: How Teranode changes blockchain scaling
Recommended for you
