Bankman-Fried Appeal Doubtful

Appeals judges react skeptically to Sam Bankman‑Fried’s bid to overturn fraud conviction

Former cryptocurrency mogul Sam Bankman-Fried, currently serving a 25-year prison sentence after being convicted for orchestrating a massive fraud via his exchange FTX, made a mid-November 2025 appearance before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (based in Manhattan).

His legal team, headed by attorney Alexandra Shapiro, urged the appellate court to overturn his conviction on the grounds that the original 2023 trial was fundamentally unfair. They argue that key evidence was excluded—specifically, testimony about legal advice Bankman-Fried allegedly received from in-house or external attorneys, as well as evidence about the solvency of FTX and recovery of assets for customers.

During the hearing, the judges—led by Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker, along with Judges Eunice C. Lee and Maria Araujo Kahn—exhibited skepticism toward the defense arguments. Judge Parker pressed the defense: “Are you seriously suggesting … if your client had been able to testify about the role that attorneys played … the not-guilty verdicts would have rolled in?”

The defense emphasized that the trial court (District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan) improperly limited Bankman-Fried from presenting his “side of the story.” They contend that the jury heard only the prosecution’s narrative—that investors and customers lost billions, and that Bankman-Fried misappropriated customer funds. The defense counters that many of FTX’s creditors have since recovered their investments (they cite a figure of 98% of creditors receiving around 120% of their original investment), and that the exclusion of evidence about legal advice and the financial state of FTX prevented the jury from understanding the full context.

The government, represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Nathan Rehn, pushed back, stating that the trial was fair and that the evidence of wrongdoing was “very substantial.” The prosecution noted that several insiders—executives and close associates—testified that Bankman-Fried knowingly used customer deposits to fund risky investments and political donations.

Another important point the judges raised is the massive forfeiture order of about $11 billion that was imposed during Bankman-Fried’s sentencing. The panel asked whether such a gigantic forfeiture had proper “penal justification.”

No decision was issued at the hearing; the appeals court will issue its ruling at a later date.

In brief: Bankman-Fried argues that his conviction should be overturned because the jury was prevented from seeing his entire defense, including legal‐advice evidence and proof of recovery for customers; the appellate judges are unconvinced at this stage, asking pointed questions and noting strong evidence against him.

🧭 Why it matters

• It underscores the difficulty of overturning high-profile criminal convictions even when a defendant argues procedural unfairness.

• It highlights the role of the “advice of counsel” defence in white-collar crime trials and how trial-court evidentiary rulings can become critical in appeals.

• It raises questions about how asset recovery for victims (such as FTX creditors) interacts with criminal culpability and sentencing (for example, the $11 billion forfeiture).

• It signals to the crypto industry and regulators that the justice system remains aggressively focused on fraud that affects investor and customer trust—even in contexts where novel technology (crypto exchanges) is involved.

• It has broader implications for how appellate courts will review claims of trial unfairness, especially in complex financial cases, and whether evidence exclusions or jury restrictions may be grounds for retrial.

---

⚖️ Key legal outcomes

• The appeals panel heard arguments challenging the fairness of the 2023 trial of Sam Bankman-Fried, specifically regarding exclusion of evidence about legal advice and FTX’s asset status.

• The judges expressed scepticism about the defence’s contention that inclusion of that excluded evidence would likely have led to a not‐guilty verdict, referencing the strong record of evidence.

• The court questioned the appropriateness of the $11 billion forfeiture in Bankman-Fried’s sentence—a major legal and financial component of the case.

• The appeal is still pending—no final decision has been issued by the Second Circuit.

• Depending on the outcome, a retrial or some form of vacatur/modification could be ordered if the court finds the trial was unfair or the sentencing/fine/forfeiture unreasonable.