Sam Bankman-Fried, the former chief executive of the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX, has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn his 2023 fraud conviction and an accompanying $11 billion forfeiture order. The filing, submitted on September 10, asks the justices for a new trial and challenges key evidentiary rulings from his original proceedings as well as the size of the financial penalty.

Bankman-Fried is currently serving a 25-year prison sentence handed down in March 2024 after a Manhattan jury found him guilty on seven counts involving wire fraud, conspiracy, securities fraud, commodities fraud and money laundering. Prosecutors contended he orchestrated a scheme that misappropriated billions of dollars in FTX customer funds to cover debts at his trading firm Alameda Research, finance investments, make political donations and support personal spending.

Appeals Court Decision and Core Legal Arguments

A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed both the conviction and the sentence in June 2026. That ruling left intact the district court’s judgment and formalized the $11.02 billion forfeiture. Bankman-Fried’s Supreme Court petition now seeks review of two principal issues.

First, his lawyers argue that the trial court improperly restricted the defense while allowing prosecutors to present evidence of substantial customer losses. The petition maintains that FTX and Alameda Research, though temporarily short of liquid funds, held sufficient assets to repay customers in full. It states that customers have since been repaid through the FTX bankruptcy process, including with substantial interest.

Defense counsel contend that evidence of ultimate repayment and the soundness of the underlying investments should have been admitted. They describe the government’s presentation of loss figures as distracting and prejudicial under a legal theory that did not require proof of net economic harm to establish fraud.

The Second Circuit had rejected similar arguments, relying in part on a 2025 Supreme Court decision, Kousisis v. United States. That ruling held that a material misrepresentation used to induce a transaction involving money or property can support a federal fraud conviction even without an intent to cause net economic loss. Applying that precedent, the appeals court concluded that unauthorized transfers of customer assets to Alameda completed the fraud regardless of any later recovery or the defendant’s belief that customers would eventually be made whole.

Challenge to the Forfeiture Order

The petition separately attacks the $11.02 billion forfeiture as unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines. Bankman-Fried’s lawyers assert that the amount is grossly disproportionate to the offenses and could hinder his ability to earn a living after any eventual release from prison.

The Second Circuit had already considered and rejected this claim. The panel noted that federal forfeiture statutes calculate the sum based on proceeds obtained through the criminal conduct rather than solely on remaining victim losses. It applied the Supreme Court’s established test for excessiveness and found that Bankman-Fried had not successfully challenged the district court’s analysis of the relevant factors. An inability to pay the judgment, the appeals court added, does not by itself render the order unconstitutional.

FTX’s ongoing bankruptcy distributions remain legally distinct from the criminal forfeiture. The estate has returned substantial sums to eligible creditors under its confirmed Chapter 11 plan, with later recoveries occurring after the conduct at issue in the trial.

Path Forward at the Supreme Court

Filing a petition for a writ of certiorari does not stay the sentence or guarantee that the justices will hear the case. Four of the nine justices must vote to grant review. The government will have an opportunity to respond, after which the Court may grant the petition, deny it, or seek additional briefing.

Supreme Court review remains statistically rare; the Court typically accepts only a small fraction of the thousands of petitions filed each term. If the justices decline to take the case, the Second Circuit’s judgment and the 25-year sentence stand. Should review be granted, the Court could address the evidentiary question, the Eighth Amendment challenge, or both.

Bankman-Fried has also pursued executive clemency, applying for a pardon from President Donald Trump. That request remains pending, though earlier statements from the White House and a unanimous Senate resolution have indicated limited support for such relief.

The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will accept the petition for argument.