United States District Judge Lewis Kaplan formally denied Sam Bankman-Fried’s (SBF) motion for a new trial on April 28, 2026, simultaneously rejecting SBF’s last-minute attempt to withdraw the motion without prejudice. In his ruling, Judge Kaplan characterized SBF’s allegations of newly discovered evidence as “baseless on multiple levels, each sufficient in itself.”
Details of the Denial
According to court records accessed by Bloomberg and Inner City Press, SBF filed the pro se motion in early February 2026 under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. He argued that testimony from former FTX executive Ryan Salame and an individual identified as Daniel Chapsky constituted new evidence capable of undermining the government’s case. Prosecutors strongly opposed the motion in March, and Judge Kaplan sided with the government. The judge held that even if the alleged new testimony were taken at face value, it would not lead to an acquittal given the overwhelming evidence presented at trial. SBF was convicted in November 2023 on seven counts of fraud and conspiracy related to the collapse of FTX and its trading arm Alameda Research, which resulted in the loss of billions of dollars in customer funds.
SBF’s Withdrawal Attempt Rejected
One week before the ruling, on April 22, SBF sent a handwritten letter to the court requesting to withdraw his Rule 33 motion “without prejudice.” He cited two reasons: insufficient time to respond to the government’s opposition, and his belief that Judge Kaplan could not provide a fair hearing. Judge Kaplan denied this request as well, choosing to rule on the motion itself. The letter also addressed the court’s prior concerns about who had drafted SBF’s legal filings. SBF confirmed that his mother, Barbara Fried, provided editorial suggestions and help with printing, but he denied any improper ghostwriting. Judge Kaplan had scrutinized the filings because Fried is not a licensed attorney.
New Evidence Under Scrutiny
SBF claimed that the testimonies of Salame and Chapsky could show that FTX’s collapse resulted from market panic and competitor actions rather than fraud. However, Judge Kaplan concluded that these purported new pieces of evidence were either already touched upon during the trial, lacked credibility, or were irrelevant. “Even if fully credited, they would not have changed the jury’s verdict,” the judge wrote. The ruling effectively shuts the door on SBF’s district-level effort for a retrial based on these specific claims.
What Comes Next
SBF’s direct appeal remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with oral arguments heard in 2025. That appeal is independent of the Rule 33 motion and continues to proceed. Additionally, SBF’s motion to disqualify Judge Kaplan for bias is still pending. SBF has reserved the right to refile his new-trial motion once those matters are resolved. For now, his 25-year prison sentence is unchanged. Judge Kaplan’s decision closes this particular legal avenue at the district level, leaving SBF’s future largely dependent on the Second Circuit’s ruling.