SBF Appeals from Prison, Files 35-Page Motion Accusing Trial of "Collusion"

Original Title: "Former Giant Refuses to Acknowledge Fate, SBF Files 35-Page Motion from Prison Cell Alleging Trial 'Sham'"

Original Author: Sanqing, Foresight News

On February 10th, according to Inner City Press, FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), currently serving time at California's Terminal Island prison, is actively seeking a retrial. A pro se (self-representation) motion for a new trial, submitted on his behalf by his mother, Barbara H. Fried, a Stanford Law professor, has been formally filed with the court. This 35-page document, invoking Federal Criminal Procedure Rule 33 and newly discovered evidence, strongly demands the overturning of his 2023 fraud conviction and the 25-year prison sentence imposed in 2024.

Key arguments in the motion include: crucial witnesses (such as former Alameda Research co-CEO Ryan Salame and former FTX.US executive Daniel Chapsky) not testifying, leading to serious trial irregularities; allegations of prosecutorial evidence suppression; and claims of the entire process being politically influenced, with SBF subtly framing himself as a victim of targeted persecution by the Biden administration.

The evidence and arguments presented by SBF in this filing are not aimed at directly proving his "innocence" but rather take a legal strategy questioning procedural flaws in the judicial process.

Core Allegation One: Orchestrated Witnesses and Judicial Coercion

The motion alleges that the prosecution, through threats and inducements, turned key figures against SBF and silenced witnesses favorable to him.

For example, the absence of former Alameda Research co-CEO Ryan Salame. The motion cites Salame's public statements post-August 2024 (including an interview with Tucker Carlson) as newly discovered evidence, revealing the prosecution's efforts to prevent Salame from testifying in support of SBF by threatening legal action against Salame's partner, Michelle Bond.

Regarding the testimony accusation by SBF's former Head of Engineering Nishad Singh, the motion discloses that during a pre-trial meeting, when Singh's initial statements did not align with the prosecution's expectations, the prosecutor angrily "slammed the table," criticizing Singh's memory as "unreliable."

SBF believes that it was this high-pressure intimidation that led Singh to later change his testimony. The motion formally requests the court to order the prosecution to hand over relevant interview notes to prove that the prosecution concealed this coercive process.

Core Allegation Two: The Disappearing "Liability" and the Mystery of fiat@ftx.com

SBF submitted a sworn statement from former FTX Head of Data Science Daniel Chapsky, which rebutted the embezzlement accusation from a data perspective.

The motion points out that the prosecution had presented a large negative balance in the fiat@ftx.com account as conclusive evidence of SBF misappropriating client funds. However, Chapsky refuted this explanation in his statement, calling the prosecution's explanation a "fundamental misrepresentation."

He noted that the negative balance in the account corresponded to cash and assets held by Alameda off-chain. The prosecution only showed the "debit" side's negative balance to the jury, deliberately ignoring the corresponding "credit" assets, thus fabricating a tens of billions of dollars deficit out of thin air.

Chapsky's data analysis further shows that if accounted for correctly for most of 2022, Alameda's account on FTX actually maintained a positive balance of around $2 billion. The prosecution and expert witness Peter Easton intentionally only displayed specific negative balance subaccounts, misleading the jury.

Core Allegation Three: Sullivan & Cromwell's "Asset Wipeout Technique"

SBF also pointed fingers at the law firm responsible for the FTX bankruptcy restructuring, Sullivan & Cromwell (S&C). He accused S&C of artificially creating a "balance sheet insolvency" to align with the prosecution's conviction logic and earn exorbitant legal fees.

The motion notes that FTX had an investment portfolio worth up to $8.4 billion at the time of bankruptcy (including an investment in Claude AI development company Anthropic). However, in the early stages of bankruptcy, S&C and the prosecution artificially treated these slightly illiquid but immensely valuable assets as zero or very low value to substantiate the funding gap.

SBF emphasized that the bankruptcy team ultimately confirmed that customers would receive between 119% and 143% cash compensation, a fact that itself proves his assertion during the trial that "FTX is solvent, and the money is not gone" is true.

Core Allegation Four: Political Targeting and Judicial Bias

Finally, SBF plays the political and procedural cards. He implies that he is a victim of the Biden administration's "political war." As a former Democratic mega-donor, he was swiftly cut off and harshly sentenced after the incident to appease public outrage.

In addition, given that presiding Judge Lewis A. Kaplan has repeatedly dismissed the defense's evidence regarding FTX's solvency in previous hearings, SBF's motion not only requests a retrial but also explicitly demands Judge Kaplan's recusal, citing the judge's extreme bias that has rendered him unable to impartially adjudicate this case.

Is this showdown destined to be a fight to the death?

A Rule 33 motion for new evidence post-trial must demonstrate that the evidence was not discoverable through due diligence during trial. The judge is likely to rule that Salame and Chapsky were known potential witnesses during the trial, and the defense's failure to subpoena them was a strategic choice or logistical difficulty, not presenting "new evidence."

Furthermore, the fact that FTX has a high claims payout ratio (even exceeding 100%) does not disprove SBF's alleged misappropriation of client funds at that time. Unauthorized use of client funds constitutes an immediate crime, regardless of the purpose, with subsequent asset appreciation usually deemed irrelevant in terms of legal guilt, only potentially affecting sentencing.

Regarding the accusation of coercion, absent compelling audio or written evidence demonstrating direct prosecutorial coercion (such as specific recordings of "table banging"), judges typically lean towards accepting the prosecution's explanations of procedural regularity.

Moreover, requesting a senior federal judge to self-recuse due to "bias" is rarely successful in judicial practice unless there is exceptionally clear evidence of a conflict of interest. Otherwise, such an allegation may further provoke the judicial system, being viewed as contempt for the court.

Original Article Link