Bankman-Fried Invokes Rule 33 in Bid to Reopen Case

Sam Bankman-Fried has asked a federal court to reopen his criminal case, arguing that new evidence and constitutional concerns justify a new trial.

Good to Know

• Motion filed under Rule 33 in federal court
• Filing submitted pro se through his mother Barbara H. Fried
• Request is separate from ongoing appeal of 25 year sentence

The FTX case has returned to the federal docket after Sam Bankman-Fried submitted a pro se motion seeking a new trial. Court records show the request was docketed on February 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

First reported by Inner City Press, the filing relies on Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows a court to grant a new trial based on newly discovered evidence or other grounds.

Because Bankman-Fried remains incarcerated, the motion was submitted on his behalf by his mother, Barbara H. Fried, a professor emerita at Stanford Law School.

The motion claims newly discovered evidence could alter the outcome of the 2023 fraud conviction tied to the collapse of FTX. Specifically, it references testimony from individuals who did not appear at trial, including former FTX.US operations head Daniel Chapsky. According to the filing, such testimony may materially affect the jury verdict.

In addition, the motion alleges prosecutorial misconduct and due process violations. Bankman-Fried argues the government failed to disclose information that could have supported the defense, raising constitutional concerns.

The filing also requests that Lewis A. Kaplan be recused from further proceedings in the matter.

The new trial request does not replace his ongoing appeal. Bankman-Fried continues to challenge both his conviction and the 25 year sentence imposed after the FTX collapse. The Rule 33 motion operates as a separate legal path that asks the district court to reconsider the verdict directly.

Legal experts note that Rule 33 motions face a high bar, particularly when filed after sentencing. Courts generally require clear proof that newly discovered evidence would likely produce a different outcome at trial.

FTX collapse triggered one of the largest fraud prosecutions in crypto history, and Bankman-Fried conviction followed weeks of testimony and financial analysis. Any reconsideration of the verdict would place the case back before the trial court while the appellate process continues in parallel.