Judge Denies Sam Bankman-Fried’s “Wildly Conspiratorial” Motion for New Trial

A U.S. federal court has definitively shut down FTX CEO Samuel Bankman-Fried’s, or SBF’s, motion for a new trial, ruling that the arguments presented were legally insufficient and relied on evidence that was neither new nor credible.

In a detailed memorandum issued on April 28, District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan rejected the motion in its entirety, aligning closely with the government’s opposition and emphasizing that the claims failed on multiple independent grounds.

The decision follows a series of increasingly desperate legal maneuvers by Bankman-Fried, who was convicted in 2023 of orchestrating one of the largest financial frauds in history. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

The “new witness” argument falls flat

At the core of Bankman-Fried’s motion were claims involving three purportedly “newly discovered” witnesses. The court dismissed this argument, stating that all three individuals were known to the defense well before trial.

“None of the witnesses… is ‘newly discovered,’” the order stated, adding that Bankman-Fried was aware of both their identities and the substance of their potential testimony.

The court noted that he could have sought to compel their testimony but failed to do so. Claims that their absence was due to government threats or retaliation were described as “wildly conspiratorial and entirely contradicted by the record.”

Testimony deemed unreliable

The court further ruled that even if the witnesses had testified, their statements would not have changed the outcome of the trial.

Bankman-Fried’s assertions that the testimony would prove FTX was solvent or that victims were fully compensated were labeled “inaccurate or misleading” and ultimately immaterial to the charges.

In addition, the court highlighted the lack of reliable evidence regarding what two of the witnesses would have actually said, noting the absence of sworn statements.

The credibility of one witness who later attempted to recant prior statements was also questioned. The court emphasized that such recantations are viewed with “utmost suspicion,” and concluded that the revised claims lacked reliability.

A PR push masquerading as legal fact

Judge Kaplan also referenced what he described as a broader effort by Bankman-Fried to rehabilitate his public image following the collapse of FTX. The court noted that many of the arguments presented in the motion mirrored narratives he had promoted publicly, including claims about bankruptcy proceedings and recovered funds.

“Bankman-Fried’s so-called ‘facts’ have been seen before. Many times,” the judge wrote, adding that they were previously deemed irrelevant during pretrial proceedings.

Recusal request ruled untimely

Bankman-Fried’s request for Judge Kaplan to recuse himself was also denied. The court found the request to be significantly delayed, having been raised long after the trial concluded and nearly two years after judgment was entered.

The ruling emphasized that such motions must be filed at the earliest possible stage. By waiting until well after the verdict and sentencing, the court determined that Bankman-Fried had effectively waived the claim.

Granting the request, the judge noted, would result in a substantial waste of judicial resources given the complexity and scale of the case.

Court questions timing and motive

The court also raised concerns about the timing and intent behind both the motion and the subsequent attempt to withdraw it.

After filing the motion and obtaining extensions to submit a reply, Bankman-Fried ultimately failed to do so before seeking withdrawal. The judge indicated that this sequence of actions did not reflect good faith.

The ruling highlighted that courts have discretion to deny withdrawal requests, particularly when they may result in undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, or inefficiencies in judicial proceedings.

What’s next for SBF?

While the motion for a new trial has been denied, Bankman-Fried’s last remaining legal path is his direct appeal currently sitting before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Unless that court finds a significant error in the original trial’s conduct, the 25-year sentence handed down by Judge Kaplan will remain the final word on the FTX collapse.

Also Read: Sen. Lummis Dismisses Law Enforcement Objections Over the CLARITY Act