US appellate court mandate affirms Sam Bankman-Fried conviction

cointelegraphОпубліковано о 2026-08-06Востаннє оновлено о 2026-08-06

Анотація

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has formally upheld the conviction and 25-year prison sentence of former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried. The mandate, following a June 12 ruling, rejects his appeals and affirms his seven felony convictions. The court dismissed arguments that FTX had sufficient funds to repay customers, stating that fraud occurred when customer money was transferred to Alameda Research. The ruling also upholds an $11 billion forfeiture order. This significantly limits Bankman-Fried's avenues for early release, as a presidential pardon appears unlikely and the US Senate has opposed clemency.

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a formal mandate upholding the conviction and sentence of former FTX CEO Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried, reducing the number of potential opportunities for being released from prison early.

On Tuesday, the Second Circuit filed a mandate following its June 12 ruling affirming a lower court decision convicting the former CEO on seven felony counts and sentencing him to 25 years in federal prison. Three circuit judges disputed Bankman-Fried’s claims in appeals that FTX had “sufficient liquidity to ensure that investors were made whole and would not experience any losses” and also upheld a New York court’s $11 billion forfeiture order as part of the criminal case.

“As the district court recognized, any contention that Bankman-Fried lacked an intent to defraud because he intended to eventually repay his customers was legally misleading and prejudicial because the wire fraud statute encompasses temporary misappropriation of money or property,” said Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker in the court opinion. “As the district court made clear, FTX customers were defrauded as soon as Bankman-Fried transferred their money to Alameda regardless of how strongly he believed he might later return the money.”

With the appellate mandate now official, Bankman-Fried has few legal routes to seek a potential early release from prison, including through a pardon from US President Donald Trump or an appeal to the Supreme Court. Trump said in January that he had no plans to issue a pardon, and last month the US Senate unanimously adopted a resolution opposing clemency for the FTX CEO.

Related: Ex-FTX users report funds being released in $900M distribution round

Пов'язані питання

QWhat did the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's mandate affirm regarding Sam Bankman-Fried?

AThe US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's mandate affirmed the conviction and 25-year sentence of former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, upholding the lower court's decision on seven felony counts and an $11 billion forfeiture order.

QWhat was a key argument made by Bankman-Fried in his appeal, and how did the court respond?

ABankman-Fried argued in his appeal that FTX had sufficient liquidity to ensure investors would not experience losses, implying a lack of intent to defraud. The court rejected this, stating that the wire fraud statute encompasses temporary misappropriation and that fraud occurred as soon as customer funds were transferred to Alameda.

QWhat legal avenues for potential early release does Sam Bankman-Fried have left following the appellate mandate?

AFollowing the appellate mandate, Sam Bankman-Fried has very few legal avenues for potential early release. These include a pardon from the US President or an appeal to the Supreme Court, though both options face significant hurdles as indicated by the article.

QWhat was the stance of former President Donald Trump and the US Senate regarding clemency for Bankman-Fried?

AAccording to the article, former President Donald Trump said he had no plans to issue a pardon for Bankman-Fried, and the US Senate unanimously adopted a resolution opposing clemency for him.

QWhat specific legal concept did the court cite to counter the defense's argument about intending to repay customers?

AThe court cited the legal principle that the wire fraud statute 'encompasses temporary misappropriation of money or property.' This means that the intent to eventually repay does not negate the crime of fraud, which occurred at the moment the funds were misappropriated.

Пов'язані матеріали

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片