Sam Bankman-Fried’s Lawyer Details Supreme Court Appeal in FTX Fraud Case

Background and Supreme Court Appeal Timeline

Sam Bankman-Fried (commonly known as SBF), the former CEO of the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX, was convicted in 2023 on seven felony fraud counts related to the misuse of customer funds. Following the bankruptcy of FTX in November 2022, Bankman-Fried faced a 25-year prison sentence and a court-ordered $11 billion forfeiture. After losing an appeal to the US Second Circuit Court in 2026, he is now pursuing an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) while also seeking a presidential pardon from former President Donald Trump.

Procedure for Seeking Supreme Court Review

Jeffrey Fisher, Bankman-Fried’s lawyer from Hecker Fink LLP, explained that under Supreme Court rules, a petition for a writ of certiorari must be filed within 90 days of the appellate court decision to request the justices to consider the case. The federal government was initially given until October 15, 2026, to respond to SBF’s petition, but that deadline was extended to November 16, 2026. This extension allows the Supreme Court to decide whether to hear the case toward the end of 2026 or early 2027. If the court grants review, a final decision could be issued by the end of the current term in June 2027 or during the following term starting later that year.

Arguments Presented in the Petition

Bankman-Fried’s petition to the Supreme Court centers on two main arguments. First, it challenges the lower courts’ acceptance of evidence indicating that victims lost funds, arguing that evidence of customers’ financial losses should not have influenced the fraud conviction. Second, it contests the $11 billion forfeiture order as excessive, claiming it violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines.

Fisher noted that the Supreme Court has previously expressed concern about prosecutorial overreach in criminal fraud cases. The evidence introduced against Bankman-Fried raised serious questions about potential prejudice against the defendant. Prosecutors and the Second Circuit ruling argued that it was legally irrelevant whether Bankman-Fried had funds or planned to repay victims. The court stated that customers were defrauded as soon as their money was transferred to Alameda Research, a firm also controlled by Bankman-Fried.

Fisher countered that this stance differs from typical fraud cases where defendants profit at victims’ expense. Here, the government’s theory made it irrelevant whether any customers lost money or the extent of those losses.

The petition referenced the Supreme Court ruling in Kousisis v. United States (2025), which allowed prosecutors to seek long prison sentences for fraud even if victims suffered no financial harm. However, Bankman-Fried’s defense cited United States v. Carpenter (2007), a First Circuit ruling, which emphasized whether a defendant intended to cause financial harm. In Carpenter, the appellate court found a jury’s decision might have been influenced by moral disapproval rather than direct evidence of fraud.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Case Prospects

Mark Bini, a former federal and state prosecutor and Reed Smith partner, evaluated Bankman-Fried’s chances of success at the Supreme Court as low, especially regarding a new trial. However, he found the forfeiture issue of $11 billion to be legally intriguing given its size and implications. Bini noted that relying on United States v. Carpenter rather than Kousisis makes the defense’s position an uphill legal battle.

Bini acknowledged the unusual situation where FTX customers were eventually repaid starting in 2025, but at token values dated back to 2022, potentially causing missed gains. He described the case as rare, where the defense argues that victims have been made whole yet faces a massive forfeiture order.

Implications of the Forfeiture Order on Bankman-Fried’s Future

The $11 billion forfeiture order could impact Bankman-Fried long after his prison sentence, which is expected to last until 2043. Fisher explained that Bankman-Fried currently has no assets to pay this amount, effectively creating a lifelong debt to the government. Any money he earns after release would likely have to be surrendered under the forfeiture terms, leaving him minimal financial freedom.

Bini suggested that if the Supreme Court accepts the forfeiture argument but not the defense’s claim regarding repayment evidence, the forfeiture amount might be reduced rather than triggering a new trial. He emphasized the tension in the case, as the government is entitled to pursue both forfeiture and restitution, an unusual situation when victims are being compensated.

Cointelegraph reached out to the US Department of Justice for comment but received no response.

Caroline Ellison’s Post-Prison Employment

Caroline Ellison, former CEO of Alameda Research and a key figure in FTX’s collapse, has taken a position at Manifund, a charitable fundraising organization tied to the effective altruism movement. Ellison began a work trial at Manifund on July 13, 2026, roughly six months after her release from federal custody as part of a plea deal.

Manifund co-founder and CEO Austin Chen expressed belief in redemption, praising Ellison for admitting faults, working to make creditors whole, and serving her prison sentence. He expressed his hope that society will support her opportunity to contribute positively.

Ellison publicly stated gratitude to Chen ‘‘for giving me a second chance, and judging me on my current work performance rather than my past.’"

However, the decision to hire Ellison sparked significant backlash. Comments on Chen’s Substack post included characterizations of the hiring as ‘‘an extremely rogue move’’ and ‘‘truly terrible judgment.’’ Nic Carter, co-founder of Coin Metrics, called Ellison a ‘‘cynical opportunist who stole billions’’ and criticized her lenient sentence. He expressed strong disapproval of attempts to rehabilitate her publicly.