Sam Bankman‑Fried asks U.S. court for a new FTX fraud trial

Sam Bankman‑Fried has renewed his legal campaign with a motion asking a New York federal court to order a new trial in the fraud case tied to the collapse of FTX. The filing, submitted by his mother as his representative, frames the request around evidence and witness testimony that were not part of the original proceedings. That submission points to absent testimony from former FTX executives whose accounts, the motion contends, could shift how the record is read. One referenced figure has his own criminal history and claims of cooperation with prosecutors, an issue prosecutors and judges have treated as part of a complex factual backdrop. Bankman‑Fried remains incarcerated under a long custodial term imposed after his conviction, and that sentence is a central datum in evaluating what relief is realistic. Previous appellate hearings produced skepticism about arguments that the company’s solvency was the decisive factual question at trial, and judges flagged that the central accusation concerned diversion of customer assets. The broader political context has also hardened prospects for executive clemency, with prominent political figures publicly distancing themselves from any pardon effort. Practically, a successful retrial motion would require the court to find that the newly presented material could have produced a different verdict, a high legal bar. Even short of success, the motion forces additional factual disclosures and preserves avenues for future appeals, which can matter for asset recovery and related civil proceedings. For regulators and market participants, the filing keeps FTX’s collapse and the governance failures that followed in public view, sustaining pressure for enforcement and legislative responses. The path forward will hinge on the court’s assessment of the purported new evidence, the credibility of belated witness accounts, and whether procedural errors at trial rise to the level that justifies a do‑over. At present, the motion appears tactical: it extends litigation lifelines and seeks to reframe contested facts, but it faces significant hurdles both legally and politically. The immediate procedural consequence is a formal judicial review that may generate further filings and limited discovery, rather than an abrupt change in custody or sentence.