From a Trillion-Dollar Empire to Prison Appeals: A 35-Page Document Attempts to Rewrite the Ending

比推Publicado em 2026-02-11Última atualização em 2026-02-11

Resumo

Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), the imprisoned founder of FTX, has filed a 35-page pro se motion seeking to overturn his 2023 fraud conviction and 25-year sentence. Submitted through his mother, Stanford law professor Barbara H. Fried, the motion cites newly discovered evidence and alleges multiple judicial and prosecutorial misconducts. Key claims include: the prosecution allegedly threatened witnesses like Ryan Salame to prevent exculpatory testimony and coerced former FTX engineering head Nishad Singh into changing his statements. SBF also presents a sworn declaration from former FTX data head Daniel Chapsky, arguing that prosecutors misrepresented Alameda Research’s account balances to fabricate a shortfall. Additionally, SBF accuses Sullivan & Cromwell, the law firm handling FTX’s bankruptcy, of undervaluing assets to support the narrative of insolvency—contrary to the eventual 119-143% customer recovery rate. He further suggests political targeting by the Biden administration and requests Judge Lewis A. Kaplan to recuse himself due to perceived bias. Legal experts view the motion as a long shot, as most claims rely on evidence that may not meet the “newly discovered” standard, and challenging judicial bias is rarely successful.

Written by: Sanqing, Foresight News

Original title: Former Titan Refuses to Accept Fate, SBF Files 35-Page Motion from Prison Alleging "Conspiracy" in Trial

On February 10, according to a report by Inner City Press, FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), currently serving his sentence at Terminal Island prison in California, is actively seeking to overturn his conviction. A pro se (self-represented) motion for a new trial, submitted on his behalf by his mother, Stanford Law School Professor Barbara H. Fried, has been formally filed with the court. This 35-page document cites Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 33 and newly discovered evidence, strongly demanding the reversal of his 2023 fraud conviction and the 25-year prison sentence imposed in 2024.

The motion's key arguments include: the absence of crucial witnesses (such as former Alameda Research co-CEO Ryan Salame and former FTX.US executive Daniel Chapsky) led to serious flaws in the trial; prosecutors allegedly concealed evidence; and the entire process was influenced by political factors, with SBF subtly suggesting he was a victim of "targeted prosecution" by the Biden administration.

The evidence and arguments submitted by SBF this time are not aimed at directly proving his "innocence" but rather adopt a legal strategy questioning the procedural loopholes in the judicial process.

Core Allegation One: "Customized" Witnesses and Judicial Coercion

The motion alleges that the prosecution, through threats and inducements, turned his inner circle against him and "silenced" witnesses favorable to his defense.

For example, the absence of former Alameda Research co-CEO Ryan Salame. The motion cites Salame's public statements after August 2024 (including an interview with Tucker Carlson) as newly discovered evidence, revealing that prosecutors threatened to prosecute Salame's partner, Michelle Bond, to prevent Salame from testifying to SBF's innocence.

Regarding former engineering director Nishad Singh, who testified against SBF, the motion discloses that during pre-trial interviews, when Singh's initial statements did not meet the prosecution's expectations, a prosecutor angrily "slammed the table," reprimanding Singh for his "unreliable" memory.

SBF believes that this high-pressure intimidation forced Singh to subsequently change his testimony. The motion formally requests the court to order the prosecution to hand over the relevant interview notes to prove this coercion was concealed.

Core Allegation Two: The Vanishing "Liabilities" and the Mystery of [email protected]

SBF submitted a sworn declaration from former FTX Head of Data Science Daniel Chapsky, countering the misappropriation allegations from a data perspective.

The motion points out that the prosecution had presented the huge negative balance in the [email protected] account as ironclad evidence of SBF's misappropriation of customer funds. However, Chapsky refutes this in his declaration, calling the prosecution's interpretation a "fundamental misrepresentation."

He stated that the negative balance in this account corresponded to cash and assets held offline by Alameda. The prosecution only showed the "debit" negative numbers to the jury but deliberately omitted the corresponding "credit" assets, thus fabricating a false impression of a multi-billion dollar shortfall.

Chapsky's data analysis further shows that if correctly accounted for during most of 2022, Alameda's account on FTX actually maintained a positive balance of approximately $2 billion. The prosecution and expert witness Peter Easton deliberately only displayed certain specific sub-accounts with negative balances, misleading the jury.

Core Allegation Three: Bankruptcy Law Firm S&C's "Asset Erasure Technique"

SBF also targeted the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell (S&C), responsible for FTX's bankruptcy restructuring. He accuses S&C of artificially creating "insolvency" to align with the prosecution's conviction narrative and to earn exorbitant legal fees.

The motion states that FTX held a venture portfolio valued at up to $8.4 billion at the time of bankruptcy (including investments in Claude AI developer Anthropic). However, in the early stages of bankruptcy, S&C and the prosecution, to solidify the funding gap, artificially recorded these less liquid but highly valuable assets at zero or extremely low values.

SBF emphasizes that the bankruptcy team's eventual confirmation that customers will receive 119% to 143% cash recovery itself proves that his assertion during the trial—"FTX was solvent, the money wasn't lost"—was true.

Core Allegation Four: Political Targeting and Judicial Bias

Finally, SBF played the political and procedural cards. He implied he was a victim of a "political war" by the Biden administration. As a former major Democratic donor, he was quickly distanced from and harshly sentenced after his downfall to quell public anger.

Furthermore, given that presiding Judge Lewis A. Kaplan repeatedly rejected defense evidence regarding "FTX's solvency" during the previous trial, SBF's motion not only demands a new trial but also explicitly requests Judge Kaplan to recuse himself, citing the judge's demonstrated extreme bias and inability to adjudicate the case fairly.

Is This Breakout Attempt Doomed to Be a Last Stand?

A Rule 33 motion requires the evidence to be "newly discovered" after the trial, which the defense could not have obtained through "due diligence" during the trial. The judge will likely rule that Salame and Chapsky were known potential witnesses during the trial, and the defense's failure to call them was a strategic choice or an objective difficulty, not "new evidence."

Moreover, FTX's high recovery rate (even exceeding 100%) does not conversely prove that SBF did not misappropriate customer funds at the time. The crime is established upon the unauthorized use of customer funds (regardless of intent), and subsequent asset appreciation is typically considered irrelevant to legal guilt, potentially affecting only sentencing.

Regarding the coercion allegations, unless there is conclusive audio or written evidence proving direct prosecutorial coercion (such as a specific recording of "table slamming"), judges generally tend to accept the prosecution's explanations of procedural compliance.

Additionally, successfully requesting a senior federal judge to recuse themselves for "bias" is extremely rare in judicial practice, unless there is very clear evidence of a conflict of interest. Otherwise, such accusations might further anger the judicial system and be seen as contempt of court.

Twitter:https://twitter.com/BitpushNewsCN

Bitpush TG Discussion Group:https://t.me/BitPushCommunity

Bitpush TG Subscription: https://t.me/bitpush

Original article link:https://www.bitpush.news/articles/7611087

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the main legal strategy Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) is using in his motion for a new trial?

ASBF is not directly attempting to prove his innocence but is instead challenging the legal process by alleging procedural flaws in his trial, including the absence of key witnesses, prosecutorial misconduct in withholding evidence, and political influence.

QAccording to the motion, why was key witness Ryan Salame absent from SBF's trial?

AThe motion alleges that prosecutors threatened to indict Ryan Salame's partner, Michelle Bond, to prevent Salame from testifying in SBF's defense, which they claim would have supported SBF's innocence.

QHow does the motion challenge the prosecution's evidence regarding the [email protected] account's negative balance?

AThe motion includes a sworn statement from former FTX data science head Daniel Chapsky, who argues the prosecution's portrayal was a 'fundamental misrepresentation.' He claims the negative balance corresponded to cash and assets Alameda held off-chain and that Alameda's account actually maintained a positive balance of approximately $2 billion when correctly accounted for.

QWhat role does SBF's motion allege the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell (S&C) played in his conviction?

ASBF alleges that the bankruptcy law firm S&C, to support the prosecution's case and earn massive legal fees, artificially created the appearance of insolvency by initially valuing FTX's vast venture portfolio (worth billions) at zero or a very low value, despite the assets later proving sufficient for over 100% customer repayment.

QWhat two significant requests does SBF make regarding the judge who presided over his trial, Lewis A. Kaplan?

ASBF's motion requests a new trial and also formally asks for Judge Lewis A. Kaplan to recuse himself from the case, citing the judge's alleged extreme bias and inability to rule fairly due to his previous rejections of defense evidence concerning FTX's solvency.

Leituras Relacionadas

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that the core limitation of blockchain technology is not the scalability trilemma, but its fundamental lack of privacy, which acts as a barrier to institutional capital. It defines blockchain as a slow, expensive, shared computer whose primary value is "permissionlessness" (no administrator) and verifiable trust. While this is ideal for native financial assets like stable币, which now process trillions, two critical flaws remain for mainstream adoption: regulatory legitimacy and a default transparency that leaks all financial activity. The author contends that transparency is not a feature but a tax, quantified through MEV extraction, making the public ledger unusable for serious institutions. However, modern cryptography, specifically zero-knowledge proofs, now offers a solution: "provable privacy." This allows users to prove compliance (e.g., solvency, KYC) without revealing underlying data. This fusion of privacy and auditability resolves the transparency-compliant privacy-compliance dichotomy, enabling a purely upgraded system where transactions are verified but not broadcasted. Closing these flaws is presented as the essential bridge to onboard the next wave of trillions in capital.

marsbitHá 4h

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

marsbitHá 4h

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手Há 4h

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手Há 4h

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbitHá 6h

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbitHá 6h

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手Há 8h

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手Há 8h

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbitHá 9h

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'