Sam Bankman-Fried, the lawyer of the former CEO of FTX, has defended him in the Supreme Court case.

SBF is seeking a review by the U.S. Supreme Court, while awaiting a decision on pardonnment from President Trump.

After being convicted in 2023 and having his appeal rejected by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 2026, Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried, former CEO of FTX, is waiting for a possible presidential pardon that may never come. At the same time, he hopes to appeal the criminal case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jeffrey Fisher, the lawyer who filed the appeal on behalf of Bankman-Fried with the U.S. Supreme Court, revealed the potential timeline for this case during an interview. He pointed out that if the justices agree to accept his request for a writ of habeas corpus, it could lead to a new trial.

The process and timeline at the Supreme Court

Bankman-Fried is seeking review by the Supreme Court, as well as a pardon from President Donald Trump. According to Fisher, under Supreme Court regulations, SBF must submit a writ of habeas corpus within 90 days after the decision by the appellate court, asking the justices to consider the case.

The Supreme Court initially required the U.S. government to respond to SBF’s request by October 15th, but that deadline was later extended to November 16th. This extension may allow the justices to decide whether to take up the case by the end of 2026 or early 2027. If the court agrees to review his client’s case, it may make a decision during the current term (ending in June 2027), or it might wait until the next term after one year.

Bancman-Fried was convicted of seven counts of fraud for misusing customers’ funds. He founded and led the cryptocurrency exchange FTX, which filed for bankruptcy in November 2022. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison and ordered to pay a fine of $11 billion.

The core issue is whether the losses suffered by the victims are relevant to the case.

Bancman-Fried submitted a petition to the Supreme Court, presenting two main arguments for consideration by the justices:

1. There is a problem with the bias in the evidence presented: The lower court considered the evidence showing that the victims suffered financial losses, but concluded that it was biased.
2. The eighth amendment violates constitutional principles, as the $11 billion fine imposed after the conviction contravenes the prohibition on excessive fines.

Fisher said, “For many years, the Supreme Court has been concerned about the excessive actions of prosecutors in criminal fraud cases. The evidence used in this case truly raises questions about the fairness of the trial.”

The prosecutors’ arguments in the SBF trial, as well as the views reiterated by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, argue that from a legal perspective, it is irrelevant whether the former CEO had access to funds and planned to repay FTX’s creditors. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated in its decision in June 2026, “As the district court clearly pointed out, once Bancman-Fried transferred customers’ funds to Alameda, FTX customers were defrauded, regardless of his claims that he would return those funds later.”

Feisher argued that this theory differs from many fraud cases. In many other cases, the defendants “lied and tricked others into giving them money in exchange for their own benefits.” He said, “Our main point is that the government’s chosen theory makes it irrelevant whether any customers suffer losses, or how much they lose.”

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Kousis v. United States case in 2025 stated that when people give money due to false statements, the prosecution can seek sentences of up to several decades—even if they don’t suffer any financial losses at all.

However, SBF’s lawyers believe that the ruling in the United States v. Carpenter case by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in 2007 applies more to the FTX case. In that case, the defendant “intended from the beginning to ensure that his customers wouldn’t suffer any financial losses.” At that time, the appeals court ruled that the jury’s decision might have been based on “moral dissatisfaction,” rather than evidence related to fraud.

Mark Bini, former federal and state prosecutor and now partner at Reed Smith LLP, said he believes the chances of the court accepting SBF’s arguments and ordering a new trial are “very low.” But given the scale of the $11 billion figure involved, the conditions for confiscation are “very interesting.” He said that relying on the Carpenter case instead of the Kousis case would be a “challenging battle” for Bancman-Freed.

Although many FTX users eventually received compensation starting in 2025, the value of the tokens was calculated based on their price at the time of the collapse in 2022. This means that many people may have missed out on gains during the three years between bankruptcy and repayment.

没收令如何影响SBF的“未来生计”

班克曼-弗里德的没收令可能会在他出狱后长期跟随他，允许政府对其未来收入提出要求。预计这位前FTX首席执行官将在监狱中服刑至2043年。

费舍尔说：“他没有钱来支付这笔款项。根据惩罚条款，这是一笔对他余生都有效的110亿美元债务，需支付给政府。他出狱后赚取的每一分钱都必须上交政府……也许有一些规则让他能保留极少部分。”

比尼表示，如果法院接受了没收论点，但驳回了SBF有权出示与偿还用户相关证据的主张，那么更有可能的结果是减少没收金额，而不是开启新的审判。

这位Reed Smith律师补充道：“这是一个巨大的没收金额，而且存在这种张力，因为案例法规定政府有权同时寻求没收和赔偿。这是一个非常不寻常的案件，辩护方辩称‘每个人都被全额补偿’……然而却有着巨额的没收要求。”

Cointelegraph曾联系司法部就该案发表评论，但未收到回复。

卡罗琳·艾利森受雇于慈善机构

与前FTX崩溃密切相关的核心人物之一、前Alameda Research首席执行官卡罗琳·艾利森（Caroline Ellison），在美国当局达成认罪协议并服刑后，已在 Manifund 工作。Manifund是一个与有效利他主义运动有关的慈善筹款组织。

Manifund联合创始人兼首席执行官奥斯汀·陈（Austin Chen）表示，艾利森于7月13日开始在公司进行为期六个月的试用期，大约在她从联邦拘留中释放之后。她于8月10日正式接受了全职职位。

陈说：“我相信救赎。卡罗琳承认了自己的错误，努力使债权人得到全额补偿，并在监狱中度过了她的刑期。我想给她一个回馈世界的机会；我希望世界也会同意。”

艾利森发表了一份罕见的公开声明，表示她“感谢奥斯汀给了我第二次机会，并根据我目前的工作表现而非过去来评判我。”

陈在Substack上发布的帖子下的许多评论极其负面，从称艾利森的聘用为“极其鲁莽的行动”到显示“真正糟糕的判断力”不等。

Coin Metrics联合创始人尼克·卡特（Nic Carter）说：“[艾利森]是一个冷酷的机会主义者，窃取了数十亿美元，并得到了优待，因为检察官愿意放弃一切以换取萨姆。她非常幸运，得到了如此轻的判决。你试图 rehabilitate（改造/康复）她是极大的耻辱。”