Molly White

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.