Original Author: Sanqing, Foresight News
On February 10, according to 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 Professor Barbara H. Fried, has been formally filed with the court. This 35-page document, citing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 33 and newly discovered evidence, strongly requests the overturning of his 2023 fraud conviction and the 25-year prison sentence imposed in 2024.
The motion primarily argues that the trial was severely flawed due to the absence of key witnesses (such as former Alameda Research co-CEO Ryan Salame and former FTX.US executive Daniel Chapsky) from testifying; that prosecutors allegedly concealed evidence; and that the entire process was influenced by political factors, with SBF subtly suggesting he is a victim of a "targeted attack" 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 flaws of the judicial trial.
Core Accusation One: "Customized" Witnesses and Judicial Coercion
The motion accuses the prosecution of coercing and inducing key insiders to turn against SBF and silencing witnesses favorable to him.
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, alleging that prosecutors threatened to indict Salame's partner, Michelle Bond, to prevent Salame from testifying to SBF's innocence.
Regarding former engineering head 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" and斥责 (chì zé - reprimanded/scolded) Singh's memory as "unreliable."
SBF believes that such high-pressure intimidation forced Singh to subsequently alter 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 Accusation Two: The Disappearing "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's declaration refutes this, 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 out of thin air.
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 displayed only certain specific sub-accounts with negative balances, misleading the jury.
Core Accusation 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 points out 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, early in the bankruptcy process, S&C and the prosecution, to solidify the capital shortfall, 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 Accusation Four: Political Targeting and Judicial Bias
Finally, SBF played the political and procedural cards. He implied he is 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 the incident 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 requests 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 Struggle of a Cornered Beast?
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 as soon as customer funds are used without authorization (regardless of purpose). Subsequent asset appreciation is generally considered irrelevant to legal guilt, potentially affecting only sentencing.
Regarding the coercion allegations, unless there is conclusive audio recording or written evidence proving direct prosecutorial coercion (such as a specific recording of "table slamming"), judges typically tend to credit the prosecution's explanations of procedural compliance.
Furthermore, successfully requesting a senior federal judge to recuse themselves due to "bias" is extremely rare in judicial practice, unless there is very clear evidence of a conflict of interest. Otherwise, such accusations might even further anger the judicial system and be seen as contempt for the court.
* The original motion document can be viewed here.
