Sam Bankman-Fried, the co-founder of the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX, has asked the US Supreme Court to review his 2023 fraud conviction and the accompanying $11 billion forfeiture order.
The petition for a writ of certiorari, filed on September 10, 2026, seeks a new trial and challenges both the guilty verdict on seven counts of fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering and the financial penalty imposed after his sentencing.
Bankman-Fried is currently serving a 25-year prison term handed down in March 2024.
A federal jury in New York found him guilty of misusing customer deposits at FTX to cover shortfalls at his trading firm Alameda Research, fund investments, make political donations, and support personal spending.
Prosecutors described the scheme as one of the largest financial frauds in recent history.
His legal team, which includes Stanford law professor Jeffrey Fisher, centers its argument on evidentiary rulings at trial.
They contend that the court permitted prosecutors to highlight customer losses while preventing the defense from presenting evidence that FTX and Alameda, though temporarily short on liquid cash, held sufficient assets to repay customers and investors.
The petition notes that those customers have since been made whole through the bankruptcy process, including interest.
Defense lawyers argue this restriction left jurors with an incomplete picture, especially after a 2025 Supreme Court decision in Kousisis v. United States established that wire fraud does not require proof of intent to cause net economic harm.
That same Kousisis ruling featured prominently when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously affirmed the conviction and sentence in June 2026.
The appellate panel found the trial evidence robust and concluded that later appreciation of assets or eventual repayments did not negate the original fraud.
Bankman-Fried’s petition accepts the Kousisis standard but turns it around, arguing that if actual loss is not an element of the crime, then evidence of losses should not have been admitted without allowing a rebuttal showing repayment was possible.
Separately, the filing attacks the $11 billion forfeiture as an unconstitutionally excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.
Lawyers describe it as a crushing penalty that would leave Bankman-Fried unable to satisfy the judgment and argue it exceeds historical limits on fines that strip a person of their livelihood.
The Supreme Court receives thousands of certiorari petitions each term and grants review in only a small fraction of them, typically requiring four justices to vote in favor.
A decision on whether to hear the case is expected later in 2026. The petition does not stay the sentence.
Bankman-Fried has also sought a presidential pardon, an effort that has not advanced.
The case remains a high-profile test of how federal fraud statutes apply in complex financial collapses, particularly those involving digital assets. Whether the justices accept the petition will determine if Bankman-Fried receives another opportunity to challenge the trial record or if the conviction and forfeiture stand as final.