Key Points
- Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected Sam Bankman-Fried’s motion for a retrial this Tuesday
- The judge described the motion as an attempt to salvage his public image and dismissed the arguments as meritless
- Bankman-Fried contended that testimony from three ex-FTX executives would demonstrate the exchange had sufficient funds
- Kaplan noted the defendant had the opportunity to obtain their testimony during the original trial proceedings
- His appeal challenging the initial conviction and 25-year prison term continues through the court system
The former CEO and founder of FTX, Sam Bankman-Fried, received a denial from a federal judge regarding his petition for a retrial in his criminal case.
Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court, who oversaw the 2023 criminal proceedings and imposed a 25-year prison sentence on Bankman-Fried in early 2024, issued his ruling this Tuesday from the Southern District of New York.
In his decision, Kaplan delivered harsh criticism. He characterized the motion as appearing to be “one part of a plan to rescue his reputation” that Bankman-Fried had developed following FTX’s bankruptcy filing and prior to facing criminal charges.
During February, Bankman-Fried submitted his motion without seeking counsel from his legal team. He additionally petitioned for Kaplan’s recusal from the proceedings, a request the judge declined.
The following week, Bankman-Fried attempted to retract the motion completely. He informed the court that he believed receiving “a fair hearing” from Kaplan would prove impossible. The judge turned down this request as well.
Claims Regarding Fresh Evidence
Bankman-Fried maintained that testimony from three previous FTX executives would have demonstrated the exchange possessed adequate solvency. He identified Ryan Salame, who served as CEO of FTX’s operations in the Bahamas, and Daniel Chapsky, who held the position of head of data science at FTX.
He further referenced Nishad Singh, FTX’s previous engineering director, alleging Singh modified his testimony “following threats from the government.”
Kaplan dismissed each of these contentions. He observed that these witnesses could hardly be considered “newly discovered” — Bankman-Fried had prior knowledge of all three individuals before the trial commenced and understood what testimony he anticipated from them.
“He could have obtained or at least sought to compel their testimony,” Kaplan stated in his order. “But he did neither.”
The judge characterized the allegation regarding government intimidation of witnesses as “wildly conspiratorial and entirely contradicted by the record.”
Case History and Context
Salame entered a guilty plea for violations related to campaign finance regulations and running an unlicensed money transmission operation. He received a sentence of seven and a half years of incarceration in May 2024.
Singh negotiated a cooperation agreement with federal prosecutors to escape prison time and provided testimony against Bankman-Fried during the original trial proceedings.
A jury convicted Bankman-Fried in November 2023 on the complete slate of seven charges involving fraud and money laundering. Federal prosecutors characterized the matter as “likely the largest fraud in the last decade,” making references to the Bernie Madoff scandal.
The jury determined he unlawfully transferred billions in customer deposits from FTX to Alameda Research, his proprietary trading company, to finance high-risk investments, which played a role in FTX’s eventual failure.
Kaplan also criticized Bankman-Fried’s public relations efforts, referencing his conversations with writer Michael Lewis and media personality Tucker Carlson. He remarked that these purportedly new facts “have been seen before. Many times.”
Bankman-Fried has pursued a presidential pardon from Donald Trump. Trump has indicated he holds no intention of granting such clemency.
Bankman-Fried serves his sentence at a federal correctional facility located in Lompoc, California. His appeal contesting both the conviction and sentencing continues to move through the appellate process.
