A U.S. federal judge on Wednesday denied Sam Bankman-Fried’s request for a new trial, accusing the convicted FTX founder of pushing “wildly conspiratorial” theories in a failed attempt to recast himself as a Republican victim of the Biden administration. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled that the motion was not a sincere legal challenge but a calculated step in a documented plan to secure a pardon from Donald Trump. The ruling leaves Bankman-Fried’s existing appeal as his primary remaining legal avenue.
The motion was doomed from the start. Judge Kaplan’s 30-page order, filed in the Southern District of New York, dismantles each pillar of Bankman-Fried’s argument with clinical precision. The disgraced cryptocurrency mogul claimed that “newly discovered” witnesses could prove his innocence, alleging that Joe Biden’s Department of Justice had intimidated them into silence or perjury.
Kaplan noted a fundamental problem. None of the witnesses were new. All three individuals were known to Bankman-Fried throughout his 2023 trial.
He never sought to compel their testimony then. One name stands out. Ryan Salame, a former FTX executive who pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations, now claims on social media that he lied under oath when testifying against Bankman-Fried.
Kaplan was unsparing. “If one were to take Salame at his current word, he lied under oath when pleading guilty before this Court,” the judge wrote. He deemed Salame’s credibility “highly questionable” and his unsworn statements insufficient to warrant a new trial. The evidence, Kaplan ruled, is “entirely contradicted by the record.”
A deeper frustration permeates the ruling. Bankman-Fried waited to file his withdrawal request until after the Department of Justice and the court had spent time responding to and reviewing his filings. His request to withdraw without prejudice would have allowed him to refile the motion after his appeal concluded.
Kaplan saw a looming threat of future judicial waste. To prevent that, he denied the motion outright, blocking any possibility of its resurrection. “It would be a large waste of judicial resources,” Kaplan wrote, explaining why granting the request could require another judge to master an “extensive and complicated record.” The judge’s language suggests he viewed the filing as a performative act, not a legal one. The motion was a vehicle for a political narrative.
That narrative was no accident. Kaplan revealed that Bankman-Fried drafted a Google Doc after FTX’s collapse but before his indictment. The document outlined a plan to “rescue his reputation.” The strategy was explicit.
Bankman-Fried would “come out” as a Republican “against the woke agenda,” posting on X and appearing on right-leaning podcasts. The goal was to “get as much support as possible” and meet a more lenient DOJ or secure a pardon from Donald Trump. Bankman-Fried himself labeled these “random probably bad ideas” at the time.
Since his house arrest and later incarceration, Kaplan noted, he has “followed his plan to a remarkable degree.”
Sean Buckley, a DOJ attorney, filed a robust opposition to the motion. He criticized Bankman-Fried’s “incoherent” attempt to claim “political victimhood” by suggesting his trial under Biden officials was unfair. The Trump administration’s DOJ did not buy the MAGA makeover.
The filing made that clear. Bankman-Fried was convicted in November 2023 on all seven counts of fraud and conspiracy. The charges included wire fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, commodities fraud, and money laundering.
Cole Allen Held in DC Jail Medical Isolation After Trump Assassination Charge
Kaplan sentenced him to 25 years in prison in March 2024, describing the scheme as “one of the largest financial frauds in American history.” Billions of dollars in customer funds vanished from FTX, a once-dominant cryptocurrency exchange that filed for bankruptcy in November 2022. The collapse through digital asset markets—a phrase Kaplan’s ruling avoids but the financial world remembers. The appeal process is already underway in a separate court.
Bankman-Fried’s legal team has argued that Kaplan’s trial rulings were biased and that the jury was prejudiced by pre-trial publicity. Those arguments will now proceed without the shadow of the dismissed motion. The denial simplifies the appellate landscape.
It removes a distracting side channel that Kaplan deemed baseless. The political calculus behind Bankman-Fried’s strategy reflects a broader trend. High-profile defendants increasingly seek to reframe criminal cases as political persecution, hoping to trigger executive clemency.
Bankman-Fried’s documented plan provides a rare window into that calculation. The Google Doc is not a leaked rumor. It is a cited fact in a federal court order.
That specificity transforms the story from speculation into evidence. Kaplan’s ruling also underscores the limits of that strategy. The judge, appointed by President Bill Clinton, has handled the case since FTX’s collapse.
His orders have consistently rejected attempts to delay or derail proceedings. This latest decision reinforces a pattern. Legal arguments grounded in evidence receive a hearing.
Conspiracy theories do not. For the victims of FTX’s collapse, the ruling offers little immediate relief. Bankruptcy proceedings continue to recover and distribute assets.
Many customers have waited over three years for compensation. The complexity of unwinding a global crypto empire has slowed the process. Kaplan noted that Bankman-Fried’s claims that all victims were fully compensated are “inaccurate or misleading.” The bankruptcy estate disputes that characterization.
Key takeaways from the ruling are stark. - Judge Kaplan found no “newly discovered” evidence in Bankman-Fried’s motion, only witnesses known during the trial. - The court documented a pre-planned strategy by Bankman-Fried to adopt a Republican persona and seek a presidential pardon. - The Trump administration’s DOJ opposed the motion, rejecting the claim of political victimhood. - Bankman-Fried’s 25-year sentence remains intact, with an appeal pending in a separate court. Why it matters extends beyond one disgraced billionaire. The case tests whether documented political maneuvering can influence federal criminal proceedings.
It also highlights the growing intersection of cryptocurrency fraud, political donations, and executive clemency. Bankman-Fried was a major donor to both political parties before his arrest. His attempt to weaponize partisan grievance reflects a calculated understanding of America’s polarized justice discourse.
The judiciary’s rejection of that attempt reaffirms a boundary. Courtrooms are not campaign rallies. What comes next is a waiting game.
Bankman-Fried’s appeal will proceed in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. No hearing date has been set. His legal team must convince appellate judges that Kaplan’s trial management was fundamentally flawed.
The odds are long. Federal appeals courts rarely overturn convictions based on judicial bias claims absent clear evidence. Bankman-Fried’s best hope may still lie in executive clemency.
But the Trump administration’s DOJ just called his claims “incoherent.” That door appears closed. For now, Bankman-Fried remains in a federal prison, serving a quarter-century sentence, his Google Doc strategy a matter of public record and judicial scorn.
Key Takeaways
— - Judge Kaplan found no 'newly discovered' evidence in Bankman-Fried's motion, only witnesses known during the trial.
— - The court documented a pre-planned strategy by Bankman-Fried to adopt a Republican persona and seek a presidential pardon.
— - The Trump administration's DOJ opposed the motion, rejecting the claim of political victimhood.
Source: Ars Technica
