‘We are unpersuaded’ – Sam Bankman Fried takes $11B forfeiture fight to Supreme Court

In another attempt to justify himself, former FTX founder and CEO Sam Bankman-Fried has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit his criminal conviction and the $11 billion forfeiture imposed on him.

His central argument concerns evidence about whether FTX customers actually suffered an economic loss.

Supreme Court vs. Sam Bankman-Fried

In this process, the prosecutors presented evidence that proves that customers had lost large sums of money when their funds were transferred to Alameda.

However, Bankman-Fried’s lawyers argue that this evidence was misleading and prejudicial because the government’s legal theory did not require prosecutors to prove that customers lost money.

In their view, if the prosecution’s argument was essentially that Bankman-Fried committed fraud by obtaining or transferring property through deception, then evidence showing that customers lost money should not have been given such importance.

In response to which veteran Supreme Court attorney Jeffrey Fisher told CNN, 

Where the government pursues a theory of fraud under which it doesn’t matter whether any victims lost money, introducing evidence suggesting that people actually lost money is distracting and prejudicial

Fisher added, 

All the more so where the truth is the victims did not lose money, and the defendant is unable to make that clear.

This in turn has led to the more unusual part of his argument.

What is ex-FTX CEO trying to prove?

Bankman-Fried claims that FTX customers’ lost funds could have been taken together. This is because Alameda’s investments allegedly had sufficient value to cover the liabilities.

His lawyers, therefore, wanted him to be able to present evidence. However, that effort went in vain. 

Needless to say, this isn’t the first time such an appeal has surfaced. In June 2026, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the federal appeals court that reviewed Bankman-Fried’s conviction, had also rejected his arguments and noted, 

We are unpersuaded.

The ruling further added, 

No one opted into having their money transferred under false pretenses to Alameda.

In simple terms, the ruling cleared the air around the matter by noting that Bankman-Fried had committed fraud when he secretly redirected customer assets without their authorization.

Additional friction

That said, Bankman-Fried is also challenging the $11 billion forfeiture under the Eighth Amendment. Here he argues that it is an excessive financial penalty that could leave him with a lifelong burden.

Prosecutors, however, view forfeiture as a way to recover assets connected to criminal wrongdoing rather than simply impose a fine.

This comes on the heels of the ex-FTX CEO withdrawing his request in April for a new trial for now, saying he does not believe he would receive a fair hearing before Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over his original trial.

Final Summary

• Prosecutors showed proof that customers had faced massive loss when their funds were transferred to Alameda.
• Bankman-Fried’s lawyers argue that this evidence was misleading and prejudicial.