Bankman-Fried Seeks Retrial, Challenges Fairness of FTX Trial

Sam Bankman-Fried is seeking to reopen his criminal case tied to the collapse of FTX. The former crypto executive has requested a new trial, arguing that newly surfaced witness testimony could weaken key aspects of the prosecution’s case. Convicted on multiple fraud-related counts, Bankman-Fried now claims jurors did not see a complete and accurate picture of certain evidence. His filing frames the issue as one of fairness in the trial process rather than a disagreement with the verdict itself.

Bankman-Fried Argues FTX Trial Fell Short of Constitutional Standards

Court documents argue that important information may have been mischaracterized or not properly disclosed during the original proceedings. Bankman-Fried’s legal team says the jury interpreted intent and knowledge based on an incomplete record. According to the motion, the case hinges not on whether FTX collapsed, but on whether the trial met constitutional standards.

Central to the request is a due process claim. Defense lawyers argue that prosecutors either failed to share material evidence or presented testimony in a way that distorted its meaning. Under U.S. law, a retrial can be granted if newly discovered evidence is both significant and was not reasonably available at the time of trial.

According to the filing, a new witness may provide insight into how certain transactions and internal communications were understood within FTX when they occurred. Defense counsel suggests those interpretations could weaken claims that Bankman-Fried acted with criminal intent.

High Bar Ahead: Court to Review SBF’s Retrial Request

Key points raised in the motion include:

• Prosecutors allegedly mischaracterized or omitted portions of witness testimony.
• Newly surfaced testimony may offer a different interpretation of internal FTX communications.
• The evidence in question could affect how jurors assessed intent and knowledge.
• The defense argues the information was not reasonably available during the original trial.

A retrial would carry consequences beyond one defendant. Prosecutors have relied on the FTX conviction as proof that existing fraud laws can address misconduct in digital asset markets. Any court finding that serious procedural errors occurred would likely draw close attention from defense attorneys representing other executives in finance and crypto-related cases.

Still, securing a new trial remains difficult. Courts rarely grant retrials based on newly presented witnesses unless the testimony is clearly material and likely to change the outcome. Prosecutors are expected to argue that the evidence is either cumulative, immaterial, or something the defense could have discovered earlier.

Judicial review will focus on two central questions: why the testimony was not introduced earlier and whether it could reasonably have influenced the jury’s verdict. That standard sets a high bar for granting a new trial. Even though the conviction stands, the filing has renewed attention to a case many viewed as settled. Similar efforts to reframe responsibility, such as SBF’s claim that FTX was never insolvent , show how narratives can shift even after a verdict.