Sam Bankman-Fried, the former FTX founder, has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review his criminal conviction and the $11 billion forfeiture order. His lawyers argue that prosecutors misled the jury by emphasizing customer losses, even though the government’s fraud theory did not require proving economic harm. They claim FTX customers actually did not lose money because Alameda Research’s investments could have covered liabilities. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals previously rejected these arguments in June 2026. Bankman-Fried also challenges the forfeiture as excessive under the Eighth Amendment, while prosecutors view it as asset recovery rather than a fine. He recently withdrew a request for a new trial, citing bias from the original judge.
Sam Bankman-Fried has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit his criminal conviction and the $11 billion forfeiture imposed on him. His central argument concerns evidence about whether FTX customers actually suffered an economic loss.
Prosecutors presented evidence that customers lost large sums when their funds were transferred to Alameda. However, Bankman-Fried’s lawyers argue that this evidence was misleading and prejudicial because the government’s legal theory did not require proving customer losses.
Veteran Supreme Court attorney Jeffrey Fisher told CNN: “Where the government pursues a theory of fraud under which it doesn’t matter whether any victims lost money, introducing evidence suggesting that people actually lost money is distracting and prejudicial.” Fisher added, “All the more so where the truth is the victims did not lose money, and the defendant is unable to make that clear.”
Bankman-Fried claims that FTX customers’ lost funds could have been recovered because Alameda’s investments allegedly had sufficient value to cover liabilities. His lawyers sought to present evidence supporting this, but that effort failed.
This is not the first such appeal. In June 2026, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his arguments, stating: “We are unpersuaded.” The ruling added: “No one opted into having their money transferred under false pretenses to Alameda.” The court noted that Bankman-Fried committed fraud by secretly redirecting customer assets without authorization.
Bankman-Fried is also challenging the $11 billion forfeiture under the Eighth Amendment, arguing it is an excessive financial penalty that could leave him with a lifelong burden. Prosecutors view forfeiture as a way to recover assets connected to criminal wrongdoing, not simply a fine. This follows Bankman-Fried withdrawing his April request for a new trial, saying he does not believe he would receive a fair hearing before Judge Lewis Kaplan.
