Federal prosecutors for the Southern District of New York have asked the court to reject Sam Bankman-Fried’s request for a new trial, deeming the former FTX CEO’s claims unfounded and lacking merit. The government’s formal response, submitted to the court, meticulously addresses each of Bankman-Fried’s arguments, including alleged political pressure and the introduction of purported new evidence prepared solely by the defendant himself.
Key Arguments Behind the Retrial Request
Bankman-Fried, acting without legal counsel, filed his own motion directly with the court, asserting that statements from two former FTX executives—Daniel Chapsky and Ryan Salame—should count as newly discovered evidence. Both individuals had spoken about critical matters at the heart of Bankman-Fried’s conviction. However, prosecutors countered that the defense already knew about these witnesses and could have called them during the 2023 proceedings. Under U.S. criminal law, newly discovered evidence must be truly unavailable at the time of trial; post-trial statements from uncalled witnesses do not meet this strict standard.
Bankman-Fried further argued that these new declarations could prove FTX never truly went bankrupt and that customer losses were ultimately covered through the bankruptcy process. The prosecution, however, dismissed this as both technically inaccurate and legally irrelevant. Under U.S. law, the crime of fraud is complete as soon as customer assets are misappropriated—later reimbursements or bankruptcy payouts do not retroactively undo the criminality of the misdeed.
Prosecutors also maintained that introducing the new witnesses or claims would not have changed the outcome given the weight of the evidence presented at trial. The direct role of Bankman-Fried in transferring customer funds to Alameda Research was substantiated by testimony from close associates, internal communications, and financial records. In this broader context, the statements of two additional witnesses were unlikely to alter the trajectory of the case.
Political Pressure Claims and the Possibility of a Pardon
Bankman-Fried has additionally alleged that his prosecution was politically motivated, claiming he was targeted as part of broader actions against figures in the cryptocurrency sector under previous administrations. Prosecutors emphasized that Bankman-Fried had made significant political donations to both major U.S. parties over different periods, undercutting the plausibility of a politically charged vendetta.
The government’s response also pointed out that statements from former president Donald Trump—indicating no intention to pardon Bankman-Fried in early 2026—align with his broader position toward crypto, and in no way contradict his support for the industry in regard to cases involving bank fraud.
Separate Legal Pathways and Ongoing Appeals
Bankman-Fried’s hope for a retrial, filed directly to the court, is running in parallel to a formal appellate process led by his legal team. The appeals process typically focuses on potential legal errors by the judge and is on firmer legal ground than motions for rehearing based on newly surfaced evidence.
Currently serving a 25-year prison sentence, Sam Bankman-Fried remains a central figure in one of the crypto sector’s landmark court battles. Meanwhile, other high-profile cases—like that of Tornado Cash co-founder Roman Storm, who is also seeking a new trial while facing up to 40 years in prison—highlight that resolution in these complex crypto prosecutions remains elusive for both defense and the government.
