US prosecutors have asked the court to reject Sam Bankman-Fried’s bid for a new trial, arguing that statements from two former FTX executives do not qualify as newly discovered evidence and would not have changed the outcome of his fraud case.
Prosecutors say the witnesses were already known during the 2023 trial
Acting without legal counsel, Bankman-Fried filed his own motion and claimed that statements from former FTX executives Daniel Chapsky and Ryan Salame should be treated as new evidence. According to the filing, both men addressed issues tied to the core of his conviction. Prosecutors responded that the defense already knew about these witnesses and could have called them during the 2023 trial.
That point is central. Under US criminal law, newly discovered evidence must have been genuinely unavailable at the time of trial. Prosecutors argued that statements made after trial by witnesses who were never called do not meet that standard, leaving Bankman-Fried’s motion facing a procedural problem from the start.
Claims about FTX’s bankruptcy do not undo the fraud charge
Bankman-Fried also argued that the new declarations could show FTX was never truly bankrupt and that customer losses were ultimately covered through the bankruptcy process. Prosecutors rejected that claim as technically inaccurate and legally irrelevant. In their view, the fraud offense was complete once customer assets were misappropriated; later repayments or bankruptcy distributions do not erase the conduct.
The government also said the additional statements would not have altered the verdict even if they had been introduced. At trial, Bankman-Fried’s role in moving customer funds to Alameda Research was supported by testimony from close associates, internal communications, and financial records. Against that evidentiary record, prosecutors said, two extra witnesses were unlikely to shift the case.
Political motivation claims and pardon talk fail to gain traction
Bankman-Fried has separately claimed that the prosecution was politically motivated and tied to broader actions against figures in the crypto sector under prior administrations. Prosecutors answered that he had made significant political donations to both major US parties over time, which they said weakens the argument that he was singled out as part of a partisan campaign.
The government’s response also referred to comments from former president Donald Trump, who said in early 2026 that he had no intention of pardoning Bankman-Fried. Prosecutors said those remarks were consistent with Trump’s broader stance and did not support the idea that the case was politically driven.
Formal appeal continues on a separate legal track
Bankman-Fried’s personal retrial motion is moving alongside a formal appeal being handled by his legal team. The report notes that appeals usually focus on possible legal errors by the judge, a route seen as stronger than a rehearing request based on evidence said to have surfaced after trial.
Bankman-Fried is currently serving a 25-year prison sentence. His case remains one of the most prominent legal battles linked to the crypto sector. Another closely watched matter, involving Tornado Cash co-founder Roman Storm, is also headed through a retrial push, with Storm facing up to 40 years in prison.