Activity tagged "Sam Bankman-Fried"

Posted:
Dear Judge Kaplan: I am writing to respond to your Memorandum Order of march 23, 2026, requesting me to state whether an attorney wrote either my rule 33 motion or supporting memorandum "in whole or in substantial part." (I am assuming that the inclusion of Mr. Chapsky's accompanying Affidavit was inadvertent, as I neither wrote nor purported to write that.) I conceived of the Rule 33 Motion, formulated the arguments, drafted multiple versions of it myself, and did the bulk of the legal research while I was at MDC Brooklyn and had better access to legal materials as well as a word processor. You asked about the three attorneys of record in other stages of this case; none of them had any significant input into the Rule 33 Motion. I have not discussed it with them or shared any drafts with them. Mr. Mukasey and Ms . Young only represented me in the sentencing phase, and no longer do so . While Ms. Shapiro is still representing me on my appeal, she is not representing me on this matter and I have not consulted her on it. I also shared drafts with my parents, Barbara Fried and Joe Bankman. They made editorial and organizational suggestions, some of which I incorporated into the motion. They also helped print it, as I no longer had access to a word processor. I also shared earlier drafts with a New York attorney who was originally hired to represent me on the Rule 33 Motion before I decided to represent myself; they had no significant input into the ultimate motion. I am the ultimate author of the documents and wrote the bulk of them myself, but can't comment on how you will ultimately interpret the standard in practice. As I have had to focus on responding to these questions rather than drafting a response to the prosecution's opposition, and because I do not believe I will get a fair hearing on this topic in front of you, I am now requesting to withdraw the Rule 33 motion, without prejudice to renewing it after my direct appeal and the related request for reassignment have been ruled upon. Finally, I am the author of this letter, but did consult with my parents about it, since it concerns both of them . Isl Sam Bankman-Fried prose 2026-04-13 Lompoc, CA

Sam Bankman-Fried’s affidavit has arrived. He says his attorneys of record had no input into his motion for a new trial, but that he shared drafts with his parents (both attorneys). “They made editorial and organizational suggestions, some of which I incorporated”

He also writes “As I have had to focus on responding to these questions rather than drafting a response to the prosecution's opposition, and because I do not believe I will get a fair hearing on this topic in front of you, I am now requesting to withdraw the Rule 33 motion” (for a new trial)

Posted:

Sam Bankman-Fried has just filed a pro se motion for a new trial, via his mother

February 5, 2026 To Whom It May Concern: Enclosed piease find a pro se motion for a new trial under Rule 33 of the Fed. R. Crim. Proc. On behalf of Samuel Bankman-Fried, along with a supporting Memorandum of Law and a Declaration in support of the motion from Daniel Chapsky. Although Mr. Bankman-Fried is proceeding pro se, because he is currently incarcerated he has authorized me to file this on his behalf. If you have any questions concerning this motion or the supporting papers, please address them to me. My contact information is below. Barbara H. Fried Saunders Professor of Law, Emerita Stanford Law School

His motion mainly argues that two former FTX employees who didn't testify (Daniel Chapsky and Ryan Salame) would have undercut prosecutors' narrative, but were threatened out of testifying. He also claims Nishad Singh was coerced by prosecutors into changing his testimony.

It also repeats his longstanding argument that the funds were never missing and that FTX was never insolvent. (Judge Kaplan got a bit sick of this argument during trial, pointing out that repayment doesn't negate fraud).

The judge was quick to rule: "I reject entirely the defendant's argument that there was no actual loss." The claims that customers and creditors will be repaid is at this point purely speculative, as the bankruptcy proceedings are still underway. He added that while the success of some of Alameda's investments,a and the recent rise in cryptocurrency prices, is fortuitous for creditors, it does not make Bankman-Fried's crimes any less severe. As he is wont to do, the judge provided an analogy: A thief who takes his loot to Las Vegas and successfully bets the stolen money is not entitled to a discount on the sentence by using his Las Vegas winnings to pay back all or part of what he stole if and when he gets caught.

And finally he demands Judge Kaplan recuse himself, arguing he showed "extreme prejudice". Both that argument and his "no actual loss" theory are already being litigated in his pending appeal before the Second Circuit, which I wrote about here.