SBF appeals from prison, 35-page document accuses judicial misconduct

Author: Sanqing, Foresight News

On February 10, according to Inner City Press, FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), currently incarcerated at California’s Terminal Island Prison, is actively seeking to overturn his conviction. His mother, Stanford Law Professor Barbara H. Fried, has formally submitted a pro se (self-represented) motion for reconsideration to the court. This 35-page document cites Federal Criminal Procedure Rule 33 and newly discovered evidence, strongly urging the court to overturn his 2023 fraud conviction and the 25-year sentence imposed in 2024.

The motion primarily argues that: key witnesses (such as former Alameda Research Co-CEO Ryan Salame and former FTX.US executive Daniel Chapsky) did not testify, resulting in serious trial flaws; prosecutors allegedly concealed evidence; and that the entire process was influenced by political factors, with SBF subtly suggesting he is a victim of targeted attacks by the Biden administration.

The evidence and arguments presented by SBF are not intended to directly prove his innocence but rather to challenge procedural flaws in the judicial process.

Core Allegation 1: “Customized” Witnesses and Judicial Kidnapping

The motion accuses the prosecution of using threats and inducements to turn key figures against SBF and silence favorable witnesses.

For example, the absence of former Alameda Research Co-CEO Ryan Salame. The motion cites Salame’s public statements after August 2024 (including an interview with Tucker Carlson) as newly discovered evidence, revealing that the prosecution threatened to indict Salame’s partner, Michelle Bond, to prevent Salame from testifying in SBF’s favor.

Regarding the testimony of former engineer Nishad Singh, who accused SBF, the motion discloses that during pre-trial interviews, when Singh’s initial statements did not align with the prosecution’s expectations, prosecutors angrily “slammed the table” and accused Singh’s memory of being “untrustworthy.”

SBF believes that this high-pressure intimidation caused Singh to later change his testimony. The motion formally requests the court to order the prosecution to produce interview notes to prove that this coercion took place.

Core Allegation 2: The Disappearing “Liabilities” and the Fiat@ftx.com Mystery

SBF submitted an affidavit from former FTX Data Science Director Daniel Chapsky, countering the allegations of misappropriation from a data perspective.

The motion points out that the prosecution had used the large negative balance in the fiat@ftx.com account as ironclad evidence of SBF’s misappropriation of customer funds. However, Chapsky refutes this, stating that the prosecution’s explanation is “fundamentally false.”

He explains that the negative balance in that account corresponds to Alameda’s off-chain cash and assets. The prosecution only showed the “debit” side as a negative figure, deliberately ignoring the “credit” assets, creating a false impression of a multi-billion dollar deficit.

Chapsky’s data analysis further shows that, if properly accounted for during most of 2022, Alameda’s account on FTX actually maintained a positive balance of about $2 billion. The prosecution and expert witness Peter Easton intentionally displayed only certain negative sub-accounts, misleading the jury.

Core Allegation 3: The “Asset Erasure” Tactics of Bankruptcy Law Firm S&C

SBF also targets Sullivan & Cromwell (S&C), the law firm responsible for FTX’s bankruptcy restructuring. He accuses S&C of colluding with the prosecution to artificially create the appearance of insolvency and to earn exorbitant legal fees.

The motion states that at bankruptcy, FTX held a venture portfolio valued at up to $8.4 billion (including investments in AI developer Anthropic). However, early in the bankruptcy process, S&C and the prosecution artificially marked these relatively illiquid but valuable assets as zero or very low value to justify a funding shortfall.

SBF emphasizes that the bankruptcy team ultimately confirmed that customers would receive between 119% and 143% of their claims in cash, which proves that his claim during the trial—that “FTX is solvent and funds are intact”—was accurate.

Core Allegation 4: Political Targeting and Judicial Bias

Finally, SBF plays the political card and procedural tactics. He hints that he is a victim of the Biden administration’s “political warfare.” As a major Democratic donor, he suggests that his swift disavowal and harsh sentencing after the incident are efforts to quell public outrage.

Furthermore, given that Judge Lewis A. Kaplan repeatedly dismissed the defense’s evidence suggesting FTX’s solvency during the trial, SBF not only requests a reconsideration but also explicitly asks for Judge Kaplan to recuse himself, citing extreme bias that renders him unable to fairly adjudicate the case.

Is this a doomed fight?

Rule 33 motions require that the “newly discovered” evidence could not have been obtained through due diligence during trial. The judge may rule that Salame and Chapsky were known potential witnesses during the trial, and that the defense’s failure to call them was a strategic choice or due to objective difficulties, not “new evidence.”

Additionally, a high recovery rate (even exceeding 100%) does not disprove that SBF misappropriated customer funds at the time. Unauthorized use of customer funds (regardless of subsequent asset appreciation) constitutes a crime, and whether assets later increased in value is generally irrelevant to the conviction, only potentially affecting sentencing.

Regarding coercion allegations, unless there is concrete audio or written evidence directly proving prosecution threats (such as specific recordings of “slamming the table”), courts tend to accept the prosecution’s procedural compliance explanations.

Moreover, requesting a senior federal judge to recuse himself due to “bias” is rarely successful unless there is clear evidence of a conflict of interest. Such accusations can even provoke further frustration within the judiciary and be viewed as contempt.

The original motion document can be viewed here.