Sam Bankman-Fried’s 25-year FTX sentence stands after Judge Lewis Kaplan rejects new trial motion

A federal judge in New York has denied Sam Bankman-Fried a new trial, rejecting the former FTX founder’s claim that newly discovered witnesses would have provided exculpatory testimony at his original criminal proceedings. The ruling, issued on Tuesday, April 28, 2026, leaves Bankman-Fried’s 25-year prison sentence intact and closes the district court phase of his effort to reopen the criminal case that flowed from the largest cryptocurrency exchange collapse in history.

Why did Judge Lewis Kaplan reject Sam Bankman-Fried’s motion for a new trial in the FTX fraud case?

United States District Judge Lewis Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued the decision. Judge Lewis Kaplan oversaw the original 2023 jury trial that produced Bankman-Fried’s conviction on seven counts of fraud, conspiracy and money laundering. Judge Lewis Kaplan subsequently imposed the 25-year custodial sentence in 2024 and ordered Bankman-Fried to forfeit 11 billion dollars to compensate the victims of the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX.

Sam Bankman-Fried, aged 34, had argued before the district court that newly identified witnesses could provide testimony warranting a fresh trial under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Judge Lewis Kaplan described the claim as baseless on multiple independently sufficient grounds.

In his written ruling, Judge Lewis Kaplan said none of the witnesses identified in the motion qualified as newly discovered. Judge Lewis Kaplan stated that Sam Bankman-Fried had known all three individuals well before the original trial and had purportedly known what each was expected to say if called to testify. Judge Lewis Kaplan added that Sam Bankman-Fried could have obtained or sought to compel that testimony at the time but did neither.

Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure sets a high evidentiary threshold for reopening a concluded criminal case. The provision requires a defendant to demonstrate that the evidence in question was unavailable during the original trial through reasonable diligence and that the new material would probably produce an acquittal if a fresh jury heard the case. Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled that Sam Bankman-Fried’s submission failed both elements of that test.

Which three witnesses did Sam Bankman-Fried identify as the basis for his Rule 33 new trial motion?

The three witnesses identified in the motion were former FTX engineering director Nishad Singh, former FTX executive Ryan Salame, and an individual identified as Daniel Chapsky.

Nishad Singh testified at the original 2023 trial as a cooperating government witness after pleading guilty to fraud and campaign finance violations. Sam Bankman-Fried alleged in the new trial motion that Nishad Singh had been threatened by federal prosecutors during the cooperation process, an assertion the government has rejected.

Ryan Salame served as co-chief executive of FTX Digital Markets, the Bahamas-based subsidiary of the exchange. Ryan Salame pleaded guilty in 2023 to campaign finance and unlicensed money transmission charges and is serving a separate federal sentence. Ryan Salame has subsequently sought to withdraw or recant elements of his plea agreement.

Daniel Chapsky declined to testify at the original 2023 trial. Daniel Chapsky’s expected testimony, according to the defence motion, would have addressed the financial position of FTX at the time of its collapse.

Judge Lewis Kaplan further stated there was no evidence that the three witnesses would have supported Sam Bankman-Fried’s claim that FTX had remained solvent and that all victims were fully compensated through the bankruptcy process. Judge Lewis Kaplan characterised the motion as part of a broader effort by Sam Bankman-Fried to rehabilitate his reputation, noting that Sam Bankman-Fried had committed elements of that strategy to writing after FTX filed for bankruptcy in November 2022 but before he was indicted in December 2022.

How did the authorship dispute over Sam Bankman-Fried’s pro se filing complicate the Rule 33 motion before the district court?

Sam Bankman-Fried filed the Rule 33 motion in February 2026 proceeding pro se, meaning without retained counsel. Federal prosecutors filed a written opposition in March 2026 contesting the substance of the assertions.

The authorship of the filing emerged as a procedural flashpoint. Cover materials and envelopes connected to the submission originated near the home of Sam Bankman-Fried’s parents in California rather than from the federal correctional facility where Sam Bankman-Fried is incarcerated. Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Sam Bankman-Fried to clarify whether any licensed attorneys had assisted in preparing the documents, given that unauthorised legal assistance to a pro se litigant raises questions about the integrity of the filing.

In an affidavit submitted under penalty of perjury, Sam Bankman-Fried stated he was the ultimate author of the filing. Sam Bankman-Fried acknowledged that his mother, retired Stanford Law School professor Barbara Fried, and his father, Stanford Law School professor Joseph Bankman, had provided editorial and organisational suggestions and had assisted with printing the documents. Sam Bankman-Fried stated he no longer had access to a word processor in prison. Sam Bankman-Fried also said he had shared drafts with a New York lawyer initially appointed to assist him but characterised that lawyer’s contribution to the final document as not significant.

Barbara Fried is a retired professor of legal ethics at Stanford Law School. Joseph Bankman is a tax law professor at the same institution. Neither parent represents Sam Bankman-Fried in the criminal proceedings.

Before Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled on the merits, Sam Bankman-Fried submitted a letter on April 21, 2026, asking to withdraw the motion. Sam Bankman-Fried stated in that letter that he did not expect to receive a fair hearing from Judge Lewis Kaplan and that responding to the judge’s questions about authorship had consumed time he would otherwise have used to rebut the prosecution’s substantive opposition. Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected the withdrawal request and ruled on the motion regardless.

What is the status of Sam Bankman-Fried’s separate Second Circuit appeal and judicial recusal request before the federal courts?

Sam Bankman-Fried separately asked Judge Lewis Kaplan to recuse himself from the case, alleging extreme prejudice. Judge Lewis Kaplan denied the recusal request, observing that the application had not been raised until years after the trial and after Judge Lewis Kaplan had presided over much of the proceedings during which the alleged bias was said to have occurred. A separate request from the defence to remove Judge Lewis Kaplan from further proceedings remains pending before the court.

Sam Bankman-Fried’s direct appeal of the conviction and 25-year sentence is currently before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Oral arguments in that appeal were heard in November 2025. During those oral arguments, Circuit Judge Maria Araújo Kahn questioned the defence position that FTX had been solvent at the time of its collapse, observing that the alleged misrepresentations concerned liquidity rather than solvency. Federal criminal appeals succeed at a rate below ten percent according to historical caseload data published by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

The defence has reserved the right to refile the Rule 33 motion after the Second Circuit appeal and the pending judicial reassignment request are resolved. The April 28 ruling therefore closes the district court phase of the new trial effort but does not foreclose future filings if the appellate proceedings produce a different procedural posture.

How did the November 2022 collapse of FTX and Alameda Research lead to Sam Bankman-Fried’s seven-count federal conviction in 2023?

Sam Bankman-Fried was convicted in November 2023 on seven counts of fraud and conspiracy connected to the collapse of FTX and its sister trading firm Alameda Research, where billions of dollars in customer deposits were found to be missing. Federal prosecutors described the case as one of the largest financial frauds in American history. Federal prosecutors said Sam Bankman-Fried used customer deposits placed on the FTX exchange to cover trading losses at Alameda Research, repay loans, purchase real estate, and fund political donations and personal expenditures.

FTX filed for bankruptcy protection in November 2022 after the platform was unable to process a surge in customer withdrawal requests triggered by reporting on the financial relationship between FTX and Alameda Research. At the time of its collapse, FTX was among the three largest cryptocurrency exchanges in the world and had been valued by private investors at 32 billion dollars in early 2022.

The collapse triggered a broad reassessment of cryptocurrency exchange custody practices and accelerated regulatory scrutiny of the digital asset sector across multiple jurisdictions. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Department of Justice all initiated parallel actions. The FTX bankruptcy estate, administered by a court-appointed restructuring team, has subsequently recovered substantial assets and has begun distributions to creditors.

What does Judge Lewis Kaplan’s denial mean for cryptocurrency fraud enforcement and the FTX legal precedent in the United States?

The April 28 ruling reinforces a body of district court jurisprudence that views post-conviction motions filed by defendants in major financial fraud cases through a sceptical lens, particularly where the underlying claims rest on testimony from witnesses already known to the defence at the time of the original trial. Federal courts have historically applied the Rule 33 standard restrictively to preserve the finality of jury verdicts.

For the cryptocurrency sector, the ruling consolidates the legal precedent established by the original FTX prosecution. The conviction has been cited by federal prosecutors and securities regulators as a benchmark for fraud enforcement against centralised digital asset platforms. A successful new trial motion would have unsettled that precedent and reopened questions about the evidentiary standards applied to cryptocurrency exchange operators.

Sam Bankman-Fried is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Lompoc, California, a low-security facility. The April 28 ruling leaves his sentence and incarceration status unchanged. His parents have separately sought a presidential pardon from President Donald Trump, who has indicated he does not intend to grant one.

The Sam Bankman-Fried case continues to function as a reference point in legislative debates over cryptocurrency market structure, custody requirements, and segregation of customer funds. Several pending bills before the United States Congress draw directly on the regulatory gaps exposed by the FTX collapse.

What are the key takeaways from Judge Lewis Kaplan’s denial of Sam Bankman-Fried’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial?

• Judge Lewis Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Sam Bankman-Fried a new trial on April 28, 2026, leaving the 25-year prison sentence and 11 billion dollar forfeiture order intact.
• The Rule 33 motion identified former FTX engineering director Nishad Singh, former FTX executive Ryan Salame, and Daniel Chapsky as witnesses whose testimony would have supported the defence, but Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled that none qualified as newly discovered.
• Sam Bankman-Fried attempted to withdraw the motion on April 21, 2026, citing concerns about a fair hearing, but Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected the withdrawal and ruled on the merits regardless.
• An authorship dispute over the pro se filing led Judge Lewis Kaplan to require an affidavit, in which Sam Bankman-Fried acknowledged editorial and organisational input from his parents Barbara Fried and Joseph Bankman.
• Sam Bankman-Fried’s direct appeal remains pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit following November 2025 oral arguments, with a separate judicial reassignment request also unresolved.