Sam Bankman-Fried has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review his fraud conviction, 25-year prison sentence and approximately $11 billion forfeiture order, opening what could be his final direct avenue for challenging the FTX criminal case. The September 10 petition seeks a new trial and challenges the financial penalty imposed after his 2023 conviction, according to Bloomberg Law.
The filing follows the Second Circuit’s unanimous June 12 decision affirming Bankman-Fried’s conviction on all seven counts and upholding the forfeiture. In its official opinion, the appeals court described the government’s trial evidence as “robust” and rejected arguments that eventual repayment of FTX customers undermined the fraud case. The Supreme Court is now being asked to review both that interpretation of federal fraud law and the constitutionality of the forfeiture order.
Bankman-Fried Challenges Fraud Evidence Rules
A central issue in the petition concerns evidence Bankman-Fried says he was prevented from presenting at trial. His lawyers argue that he should have been allowed to show that FTX and Alameda held assets capable of ultimately repaying customers. The defense contends that excluding this evidence prevented Bankman-Fried from fully presenting his position on fraudulent intent.
The Second Circuit rejected that reasoning by relying on the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Kousisis v. United States. Under that ruling, federal fraud does not require prosecutors to prove that a defendant intended to cause a victim permanent net financial loss. The appeals court held that the alleged fraud was complete when customer money was obtained and transferred through materially false representations, regardless of whether repayment was later possible.
Bankman-Fried is effectively asking the Supreme Court to revisit how that principle applies when evidence of ultimate repayment is excluded from a fraud trial. The legal dispute centers on whether such evidence can still be relevant to intent even when eventual economic loss is not itself an element of the offense.
$11 Billion Forfeiture Faces Eighth Amendment Challenge
The petition separately attacks the $11.02 billion forfeiture order under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. Bankman-Fried’s attorneys have characterized the judgment as a “crushing fine,” arguing that its size is constitutionally disproportionate. The Second Circuit acknowledged the enormous amount but concluded that it was not grossly disproportionate to the offenses under existing Supreme Court precedent.
The appeals court also rejected Bankman-Fried’s argument that the forfeiture should reflect victims’ eventual recoveries. It held that forfeiture can focus on proceeds obtained through the criminal conduct rather than the final financial losses remaining after bankruptcy distributions. The Supreme Court petition therefore raises a broader question about how massive forfeiture judgments should be measured in complex financial-fraud cases.
The justices are not required to hear the case. Supreme Court review through certiorari is discretionary, and the Court can decline the petition without addressing its arguments. If review is denied, the Second Circuit ruling leaves Bankman-Fried’s conviction, 25-year sentence and $11 billion forfeiture intact.
For the crypto industry, the case’s significance lies primarily in federal fraud and forfeiture law rather than blockchain regulation itself. A decision to hear the case could clarify evidentiary standards and constitutional limits in large financial-fraud prosecutions, while a denial would leave the existing appellate ruling in place.
