Federal Judge Lewis A. Kaplan has denied Sam Bankman-Fried’s motion for a new trial, rejecting the former FTX chief executive’s argument that recently surfaced testimony undermined the government’s case. The ruling leaves Bankman-Fried’s 25-year prison sentence intact for now and closes off this specific path for relief at the district court level.
The decision marks another setback for Bankman-Fried, who was convicted in November 2023 on seven counts of fraud and conspiracy tied to the collapse of FTX and Alameda Research. Prosecutors had argued during trial that billions of dollars in customer funds disappeared as his crypto empire unraveled. He was sentenced in March 2024, and has continued pursuing post-conviction challenges while also pressing a direct appeal.
Rule 33 Motion Rejected
Bankman-Fried filed the motion around February 10, 2026, acting pro se under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows defendants to seek a new trial under limited circumstances. His filing claimed that new testimony from former FTX executive Ryan Salame and another individual identified as Daniel Chapsky cast doubt on the prosecution’s case and justified reopening the proceedings.
Federal prosecutors pushed back in March 2026, arguing that the motion was unsupported and failed to meet the standard required for a new trial. Judge Kaplan agreed. In the court’s view, the purported new evidence did not come close to showing that a different verdict was likely, especially given the weight of the evidence already presented to the jury during the original fraud trial.
Kaplan reportedly described the defense claims as “baseless” on multiple levels, signaling not only that the court rejected the legal theory behind the filing, but also that it found the underlying factual assertions insufficient. That language is significant because Rule 33 motions are already difficult to win, and courts typically require a strong showing that newly discovered evidence would probably lead to an acquittal.
Attempt to Withdraw Motion Also Failed
Before the court issued its ruling, Bankman-Fried sent a handwritten letter dated April 22, 2026, asking to withdraw the new-trial motion without prejudice. He gave two reasons. First, he argued that he had not been given enough time to respond to the government’s opposition. Second, he said he did not believe Judge Kaplan would treat him fairly.
The court denied that request as well and proceeded to rule on the merits of the motion anyway. That move ensured the district court would formally resolve the filing rather than leave open the possibility of a strategic withdrawal followed by a renewed effort later under the same procedural route.
The handwritten letter also addressed the court’s questions about who helped prepare the filing. Bankman-Fried denied any improper ghostwriting, but acknowledged that his mother, Barbara Fried, had offered editorial suggestions and helped print the document. Because she is not a licensed attorney, the court scrutinized that issue closely. While the filing assistance matter was not the centerpiece of the ruling, it added another layer of tension to the post-trial proceedings.
Appeal and Recusal Request Remain Active
Although the latest order shuts down this Rule 33 bid, it does not end Bankman-Fried’s broader legal fight. His direct appeal remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That appellate process is separate from the district court motion that Judge Kaplan has now denied, and it continues to represent the main channel through which Bankman-Fried may seek relief from his conviction and sentence.
In addition, a request seeking Judge Kaplan’s removal from the case on bias grounds has not yet been resolved. That means one avenue of litigation remains open at the procedural level, even as the judge’s denial of the new-trial motion narrows the defense’s options in the lower court. Bankman-Fried had also reserved the right to reassert his new-trial arguments after the recusal issue and direct appeal are addressed, but for now the district court has squarely rejected the current filing.
What the Ruling Means
Practically speaking, the decision leaves Bankman-Fried in the same position he occupied before the motion was filed: convicted, sentenced, and still incarcerated under the original judgment. No change has been ordered to his custody status, and no new evidentiary hearing or retrial has been authorized.
The ruling is also notable because it underscores how strongly the district court views the prosecution record from the original FTX case. By finding that the alleged new evidence would likely not produce an acquittal, the court reaffirmed the durability of the jury’s verdict and the evidentiary foundation behind it. For observers of the crypto industry, the order serves as another reminder that the legal fallout from the FTX collapse continues to unfold years after the exchange’s failure, but that not every post-conviction challenge will gain traction.
For Bankman-Fried, the next meaningful developments are likely to come from the appellate court rather than the trial court. How the Second Circuit handles his appeal could determine whether any part of the conviction, sentence, or trial process is revisited. Until then, the district court chapter on this particular new-trial effort appears closed.