Former crypto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried appeals conviction to Supreme Court
By John Fritze, CNN
(CNN) — Sam Bankman-Fried, the former crypto mogul who was convicted of defrauding investors by secretly diverting billions of dollars of their money, asked the Supreme Court on Thursday for a new trial and to throw out a court order requiring him to pay $11 billion as part of his sentence.
Bankman-Fried was sentenced to 25 years in prison in 2024 after prosecutors said he directed billions of dollars from the crypto exchange FTX to a hedge fund he controlled called Alameda Research, where the funds were used for risky investments, political donations and his own personal benefit.
The Supreme Court appeal, which was reviewed by CNN, raises a technical question about evidence that was submitted at his trial, and whether Bankman-Fried should have been permitted to demonstrate that his investments were ultimately sound and would have covered any losses by FTX customers.
He also argues that the $11 billion forfeiture violates the 8th Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines.
“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,” veteran Supreme Court attorney Jeffrey Fisher told CNN. “All the more so where the truth is the victims did not lose money, and the defendant is unable to make that clear.”
The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the arguments earlier this year.
The case hinges in large part on a recent decision from the Supreme Court centered on a US Department of Transportation contractor who promised to meet disadvantaged business requirements to secure a multi-million-dollar bridge painting contract. The contractor ultimately failed to work with that disadvantaged business, instead setting up a passthrough scheme and submitting false certifications to cover up the arrangement.
After prosecutors secured wire fraud and conspiracy convictions, the company and its manager appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that such a deception couldn’t constitute wire fraud if the defendants never intended to cause economic harm. After all, the work was completed.
The Supreme Court rejected that appeal unanimously in 2025.
Bankman-Fried’s claim acknowledged that decision but raises a more nuanced question. If prosecutors don’t need to demonstrate economic loss to bring fraud charges under the “fraudulent inducement” theory the high court embraced last year, then why allow prosecutors to admit evidence of economic loss at all? And if they can do so, Bankman-Fried argues, then defendants should be able to submit evidence working the other direction.
The Supreme Court will review the appeal later this year.
The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
