What’s the Case for Supreme Court Review of Sam Bankman-Fried’s Conviction?

After being convicted in 2023, losing his appeal to a Second Circuit court in 2026 and awaiting a decision on a presidential pardon that may never come, former FTX CEO Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried is hoping to take his criminal case to the US Supreme Court.

Jeffrey Fisher, counsel at the law firm Hecker Fink LLP and representing Bankman-Fried in his Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) appeal, spoke to Cointelegraph about the potential timeline surrounding the former FTX executive’s case and what onlookers could expect to see should the justices choose to accept his petition for a writ of certiorari, possibly resulting in a new trial.

Bankman-Fried is pursuing the high court’s review while also seeking a pardon from President Donald Trump. According to Fisher, SCOTUS rules require SBF to file a petition for a writ of certiorari within 90 days of a decision from an appellate court, requesting that the justices consider the case.

The Supreme Court initially gave the US government until Oct. 15 to respond to SBF’s petition, but it already granted an extension to Nov. 16, which could allow the justices to decide whether to hear the case in late 2026 or early 2027. If the court grants review of his client’s case, it could issue a decision in the current term, which ends in June 2027, or during its next term, which begins a year from now.

Bankman-Fried was convicted on seven felony fraud counts related to the misuse of customer funds by FTX, the cryptocurrency exchange he founded and led, and which filed for bankruptcy in November 2022. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison and ordered to pay $11 billion in forfeiture.

‘Assets are fine’: Why FTX’s losses and recoveries were irrelevant at trial

Bankman-Fried’s petition to the Supreme Court presents two main arguments for justices, should they consider the case, based on lower courts weighing “evidence indicating victims lost money” and that the $11 billion forfeiture order following his conviction violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “excessive fines.” 

“The Supreme Court has expressed concern over the years for prosecutorial overreach in criminal fraud prosecutions,” Fisher told Cointelegraph. “This kind of evidence introduced in this prosecution raises a real question about prejudice to the defendant.”

Related: US Senate unanimously adopts resolution opposing clemency for SBF

The argument presented by prosecutors at SBF’s criminal trial and reiterated by the Second Circuit ruling found it was “immaterial as a matter of law” whether the former CEO had the funds and planned to repay FTX’s victims for their losses at the crypto exchange. 

“As the district court made clear, FTX customers were defrauded as soon as Bankman-Fried transferred their money to Alameda regardless of how strongly he believed he might later return the money,” the Second Circuit said in its June 2026 decision.

According to Fisher, this theory differs from many fraud cases in which a defendant “swindled people out of money and enriched himself at their expense.” 

“Our whole point is the theory the government chose makes it irrelevant whether any customers lost money or, if so, how much,” the lawyer said.

The Supreme Court petition noted that the highest court had ruled in Kousisis v. United States in 2025 that prosecutors could “seek decades-long prison sentences anytime people are induced by misrepresentations to part with their money — even if they suffer no pecuniary harm.”

SBF’s lawyers instead argued the 2007 ruling by the First Circuit in United States v. Carpenter, in which a defendant “intended all along to ensure his customers suffered no financial losses,” was more applicable to the FTX case. The appellate court initially ruled in that case that a jury’s decision may have been based on “moral disapproval“ rather than evidence related to fraud.

Mark Bini, a former federal and state prosecutor and currently a partner at Reed Smith, told Cointelegraph he believed that the chance that the court would accept SBF’s arguments and grant a new trial “seems low,“ but the conditions around forfeiture were “really interesting“ based on the size: $11 billion. He called reliance on United States v. Carpenter instead of Kousisis v. United States an “uphill battle“ for Bankman-Fried, legally.

While many FTX users were eventually paid out for their losses at the exchange beginning in 2025, the token values were based on the price at the time of the 2022 collapse, meaning many could have missed gains in the three years between bankruptcy and repayments.

How forfeiture could affect SBF’s ‘future livelihood’

Bankman-Fried’s forfeiture order could follow him long after his release from prison, potentially allowing the government to make claims on his future earnings. The former FTX CEO is expected to remain in prison until 2043.

“He has no money to pay it,” said Fisher. “Under the terms of the penalty, it is an $11 billion debt for the rest of his life, to the government. Any dime he would ever make upon release would have to be turned over to the government […] There’s rules, maybe he gets to keep a dime.”

If the court accepts the forfeiture argument but rejects the claim that SBF had a right to present evidence related to repaying users, Bini said it’s more likely to reduce the forfeiture amount than to warrant a new trial.

“It’s a huge forfeiture amount and there is this tension because the case law is such that the government is entitled to seek both forfeiture and restitution,” said the Reed Smith lawyer, adding: “It’s a very unusual case where the defense is arguing that ‘gosh, everyone is being made whole’ […] yet you have this tremendous forfeiture.”

Cointelegraph reached out to the Justice Department for comment on the case but did not receive a response.

Caroline Ellison now employed at a charitable organization

Former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison, one of the central figures tied to the downfall of FTX, has been working at Manifund, a charitable fundraising organization connected to the effective altruism movement, after serving time in prison as part of a plea agreement with US authorities. 

According to Manifund co-founder and CEO Austin Chen, Ellison began on a work trial at the company on July 13, about six months after she was released from federal custody. She accepted a full-time role on Aug. 10.

“I believe in redemption,” said Chen. “Caroline has admitted her faults, worked to make creditors whole, and served her time in prison. I’d like to give her the opportunity to contribute back to the world; I hope that the world will concur.”

In a rare public statement, Ellison said that she was “grateful to Austin for giving me a second chance, and judging me on my current work performance rather than my past.” 

Many of the comments on Chen’s Substack post were extremely negative, ranging from calling Ellison’s hiring an “extremely rogue move” to an action showing “truly terrible judgment.” 

“[Ellison is] a cynical opportunist who stole billions, and got a sweetheart deal because prosecutors were willing to give everything up to get Sam,” said Coin Metrics co-founder Nic Carter. “She was extremely lucky that she got such a light sentence. The utmost shame on you for attempting to rehabilitate her.”

Magazine: Could THORChain face prosecution over stolen Bitget funds? Legal opinion