Key Highlights
- Sam Bankman-Fried cited a recent Second Circuit ruling to support his appeal.
- He claims prosecutors presented no testimony that he directed anyone to break the law, making the absence of explicit criminal intent central to his defense.
- He has also accused Judge Lewis Kaplan of political bias and continues to argue that FTX was solvent at the time of its collapse.
Former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried has pointed to a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as support for his own appeal, arguing that the ruling highlights similar issues in his criminal trial.
The case has renewed scrutiny of trial practices used by Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over Bankman-Fried’s prosecution related to the collapse of FTX.
Appeal argues jury was blocked from hearing intent evidence
In the pending Second Circuit appeal, Bankman-Fried argues that the trial court excluded nearly all evidence aimed at explaining why key business decisions were made.
The excluded evidence included material showing that the practices at issue were industry standard, did not threaten FTX’s solvency, and were drafted and approved by lawyers. The appeal argues that without this context, the jury was prevented from evaluating whether criminal intent actually existed.
Government summation highlighted lack of direct criminal instructions
The appeal further points to the government’s own closing argument, noting that prosecutors did not present testimony showing that Bankman-Fried directed anyone to violate the law.
The filing states:
“And because they don’t focus on the ‘why,’ the government failed to mention in its summation that none of the witnesses at this trial testified that Sam told them or directed them to violate the law or said or did anything that showed he thought he was violating the law. Back in 2019, Sam didn’t say to Gary, hey, we just created this successful company Alameda, I’ve got a great idea, let’s set up FTX so we can use our secret company Alameda—wasn’t secret—to steal customer money. No witness came forward and said that Sam told them to steal customer money or commit crimes.”
According to the appeal, this absence of testimony was central to the defense and should have been considered by the jury.
Recent public claims
In recent posts on X, Bankman-Fried has continued to challenge aspects of the FTX trial and his conviction. On February 18, he accused Judge Lewis Kaplan of political bias during proceedings related to the collapse of FTX.
He claimed the judge’s comments during sentencing suggested a political dimension to the case, mentioning campaign donations and their impact on U.S. politics.
Previously, SBF also asserted that “FTX was always solvent.” He cited Dan Chapsky, the exchange’s former Head of Data Science, as a key figure in evaluating the company’s financial condition. According to Bankman-Fried, bankruptcy lawyers retained Chapsky to conduct an analysis when assessing whether the exchange was solvent at the time of its failure.
Broader context
Bankman-Fried’s appeal comes amid continued legal fallout from FTX’s collapse, one of the most significant failures in the history of the cryptocurrency industry. His trial and conviction marked a pivotal moment for federal enforcement actions involving digital asset platforms.
The Second Circuit’s eventual decision in his case could have implications beyond his personal legal outcome. Appellate rulings that clarify standards around admissible evidence, jury instructions, and intent in complex financial fraud cases may influence how future crypto-related prosecutions are conducted.
Also Read: Sam Bankman-Fried Seeks Retrial Over ‘Bogus’ FTX Bankruptcy Claims
