Sam Bankman-Fried has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn his seven-count fraud conviction and the roughly 11 billion dollar forfeiture order attached to it, escalating a legal fight that began with the collapse of the FTX exchange in November 2022. The petition, filed on Sept. 10 and first reported by CNN, arrives after the Second Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld both the conviction and the 25-year prison sentence in June 2026.
What the petition asks
The former FTX chief executive is requesting a new trial, arguing that trial judge Lewis Kaplan unfairly limited defense evidence about FTX’s remaining assets and the potential repayment of customers while allowing prosecutors to present extensive evidence of customer losses. Bankman-Fried’s legal team contends the evidentiary imbalance was prejudicial because the fraud theory applied at trial did not require proof of a net financial loss.
At the 2023 trial in the Southern District of New York, prosecutors showed that FTX customer funds were transferred without authorization to Alameda Research and spent on investments, loan repayments, political donations, real estate and personal expenses. The jury convicted Bankman-Fried on seven counts spanning wire fraud, conspiracy, securities fraud, commodities fraud and money laundering. Judge Kaplan sentenced him to 25 years in prison followed by three years of supervised release in March 2024.
The defense has long maintained that FTX and Alameda were “temporarily illiquid” rather than insolvent, and that the estate’s later bankruptcy recoveries and creditor distributions support the argument that customers could ultimately be made whole. Prosecutors countered that the unauthorized use of customer deposits completed the fraud regardless of whether the investments later recovered value, a position the Second Circuit accepted.
The Kousisis precedent at the center
The appellate court leaned heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Kousisis v. United States, a case involving contractors who used false certifications to win a government bridge-painting contract. The justices held unanimously that a material lie used to induce a victim into a transaction involving money or property can sustain a federal fraud conviction even without intent to cause net economic loss.
Applying that standard, the Second Circuit found that Bankman-Fried’s belief customers might eventually be repaid was no defense to unauthorized transfers, because the fraud occurred the moment customer assets moved to Alameda for purposes customers never approved. The June opinion described the trial evidence as “conservatively stated, robust.”
The new petition narrows the question: if actual loss was legally unnecessary, the government should not have been allowed to deploy loss evidence against him, and if prosecutors could introduce it, the defense should have been permitted to answer with evidence pointing toward eventual repayment. Jeffrey Fisher, the attorney representing Bankman-Fried before the high court, told CNN that evidence suggesting people lost money was “distracting and prejudicial” under a prosecution theory that required no proof of ultimate loss.
An Eighth Amendment challenge to the forfeiture
The petition raises a second question targeting the 11.02 billion dollar forfeiture ordered by Judge Kaplan under federal statutes covering criminal proceeds and money laundering. The defense argues the amount violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause, reviving an argument the Second Circuit already rejected on appeal.
The appellate panel acknowledged the sum was large, particularly given that many creditors are receiving payments from the bankruptcy estate, but found that federal forfeiture law calculates the amount through proceeds obtained from criminal conduct rather than victims’ remaining losses. The panel also ruled that an inability to satisfy the judgment does not by itself render the order unconstitutional. The mandate issued in August, formally returning jurisdiction to the district court and leaving the judgment in effect.
FTX’s bankruptcy distributions remain legally separate from the criminal judgment. The estate has continued paying eligible creditors under its confirmed Chapter 11 plan, including nearly 900 million dollars scheduled for the fifth creditor distribution in July 2026.
Certiorari is far from guaranteed
Filing a petition does not pause the sentence or grant a new trial. The Supreme Court must first grant certiorari, which requires four of the nine justices to vote in favor of hearing the case. The federal government will have an opportunity to respond, and the justices may grant the petition, deny it, or request further briefing before deciding. A denial would leave the Second Circuit’s judgment fully intact without producing a new ruling on the underlying questions.
If review is granted, the case could shape how financial-loss evidence is used in prosecutions built on fraudulent inducement, a theory that extends well beyond crypto. The Court could also choose to take only one of the two questions presented, either the evidentiary issue or the Eighth Amendment challenge.
Bankman-Fried has previously sought relief through several lower-court arguments concerning trial evidence, jury instructions and access to potentially favorable material, all without success. The Supreme Court petition represents his final avenue of direct review. For the crypto industry, the case remains the sector’s defining enforcement saga, and any high-court engagement with fraud standards in asset-misuse cases would be closely watched by both defense attorneys and prosecutors handling digital asset matters.
Bankman-Fried continues to serve his sentence in federal prison while the petition is pending. No timeline for a certiorari decision has been set, though such determinations typically arrive within months of a government response.
11 billion forfeiture and he still thinks a retrial is on the table. the second circuit didnt even blink
^ the Kaplan complaints are wild too. blaming the judge because his own defense was a disaster
25 years and an 11 billion dollar bill. imagine filing this petition from a cell lol
his lawyers argue customers are getting repaid so the losses were overstated. jury clearly didnt buy that framing
wild that a supreme court case about lying on a bridge painting contract is now the thing standing between sbf and a new trial. kousisis is doing heavy lifting
temporarily illiquid is doing so much work in that filing. customers waiting years for bankruptcy distributions are not whole, sam
25 years and an 11 billion forfeiture for a fraud theory that never required proving net loss. the forfeiture number always felt disconnected from any actual math
Agreed, the 11 billion always looked symbolic next to an estate that has been distributing recoveries. Whether that helps him at the high court is another matter.