Judge rejects Sam Bankman-Fried's new trial bid in FTX fraud case

A federal judge denied Sam Bankman-Fried's new trial bid, calling his arguments baseless and the motion part of a reputation-rescue plan. 

The ruling, issued on April 28, 2026, by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, puts another roadblock in front of the disgraced FTX founder's effort to undo his conviction. Bankman-Fried was found guilty on all seven counts – including wire fraud, securities fraud conspiracy, commodities fraud conspiracy, and money laundering conspiracy – after a multi-week jury trial in 2023. He is currently serving a 25-year prison sentence. 

Here is what he tried. In February 2026, while his appeal was still pending before the Second Circuit, Bankman-Fried filed his own motion asking for a new trial. He pointed to three witnesses whose testimony, he argued, would warrant a new trial. The problem? The court found that he knew all three of them before trial and could have called them or sought to compel their testimony at the time. He did neither. 

One of those witnesses, Nishad Singh, had already testified under oath – for the prosecution. Another, Ryan Salame, pleaded guilty and later went on television, podcasts, and social media claiming the government's case was a lie and that sworn statements he made when pleading guilty were false. He then withdrew that claim. The court found his credibility deeply questionable and his unsworn public statements nowhere near sufficient to justify reopening the case. 

What makes this ruling particularly striking is what the court highlighted from Bankman-Fried's own writings already in the record. After FTX collapsed but before he was charged, he wrote out a detailed plan to rehabilitate his image. The strategy included launching a media blitz, posting actively on social media, and appearing on major outlets. He even listed specific tactics like repositioning himself politically on television. The court found he had followed that script closely, even from behind bars, and that the new trial motion was simply the latest move in that campaign. 

He also asked the judge to recuse himself from ruling on the motion, arguing he could not get a fair hearing. The court dismissed that too, noting it came more than two years after the verdict. Under well-established rules, that kind of request is considered late if it comes even weeks after trial. 

In a final twist, Bankman-Fried tried to pull the motion altogether – but only if he could refile it later at a time of his choosing. The court said no. After the government had already spent significant resources responding, allowing him to simply shelve the motion and bring it back when convenient would reward delay and waste the court's time. 

So where does this leave things? Bankman-Fried's conviction and 25-year sentence remain intact at the trial court level. His appeal is still pending. 

For those of you in wealth management and advisory, this case carries a practical takeaway. Bankman-Fried's central pitch – that customers got their money back through bankruptcy, so there was no real harm – was rejected as both misleading and immaterial. Recovery after the fact does not undo the fraud. If you are evaluating platforms that hold client assets, especially those operating outside traditional regulatory guardrails, the FTX saga remains a sharp reminder that custodial risk is real, and due diligence is not optional. 

The case is United States of America v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, No. 1:22-cr-00673 (LAK), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.