Sam Bankman-Fried is asking the US Supreme Court to take up his criminal case after his 2023 conviction and his unsuccessful appeal in the Second Circuit in 2026. The former FTX chief executive is seeking high court review while also pursuing a presidential pardon, though any pardon decision remains uncertain.
The court had originally set Oct. 15 as the deadline for the US government to respond to Bankman-Fried’s petition for a writ of certiorari, but that date was pushed to Nov. 16. That extension means the justices could decide later in 2026 or in early 2027 whether to hear the case.
What the appeal asks the court to review
Bankman-Fried was convicted on seven felony fraud counts tied to the misuse of customer funds at FTX, the crypto exchange he founded and ran before its November 2022 bankruptcy. He received a 25-year prison sentence and an $11 billion forfeiture order.
According to Jeffrey Fisher of Hecker Fink LLP, who is representing him in the Supreme Court matter, the petition centers on two issues. One is whether the jury should have been allowed to hear evidence related to customers eventually being repaid. The other is whether the $11 billion forfeiture violated the Eighth Amendment’s bar on excessive fines.
Dispute over evidence about customer losses
A central argument from Bankman-Fried’s legal team is that the trial unfairly kept out evidence that could have affected how jurors viewed harm to customers. Prosecutors argued at trial, and the Second Circuit later agreed, that whether customers ultimately lost money was not material to the fraud case.
His lawyers say that approach conflicts with earlier precedent, pointing in particular to the 2007 US v. Carpenter ruling. They argue that decision, which they say addressed a defendant’s intent to prevent customers from suffering financial losses, is more relevant here than the later Kousisis v. United States reasoning.
Why the forfeiture fight may matter even without a new trial
The petition also challenges the scale of the financial penalty imposed after conviction. Bankman-Fried’s lawyers contend that the $11 billion forfeiture was unconstitutional as an excessive fine.
That issue could have consequences even if the Supreme Court declines to revisit the underlying conviction. As outlined by Fisher, if the justices were to agree only with the forfeiture challenge and not with the argument about excluded evidence, the result could be a reduction in the forfeiture amount rather than a new trial.
The forfeiture order may remain significant well beyond Bankman-Fried’s prison term because it could allow the government to pursue future earnings. He is expected to remain incarcerated until 2043.
Timeline and next steps
Supreme Court rules required Bankman-Fried to seek review within 90 days of the appellate ruling. With the government’s response now due Nov. 16, the justices may decide in late 2026 or early 2027 whether to grant certiorari.
If the court accepts the case, a ruling could still arrive in the current Supreme Court term, which ends in June 2027, though it could also slip into the following term. Whether the justices will take the case, and whether any review would lead to a new trial, remains uncertain. Legal observers cited in the source article noted that the unusually large forfeiture order may complicate the arguments rather than simplify them.
Source: cointelegraph.com