On April 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan rejected Sam Bankman-Fried's motion for a new trial, dismissing the arguments as meritless and characterizing the effort as a component of a broader reputation-rescue campaign. The ruling, issued in the Southern District of New York, solidifies the disgraced FTX founder's conviction on all seven counts, including wire fraud, securities fraud conspiracy, commodities fraud conspiracy, and money laundering conspiracy, following his 2023 jury trial.
Bankman-Fried, currently serving a 25-year prison sentence, filed the motion in February 2026 while his appeal was pending before the Second Circuit. He argued that testimony from three witnesses—Nishad Singh, Ryan Salame, and a third unnamed individual—warranted a new trial. However, the court found that Bankman-Fried knew all three before trial and could have called them or sought to compel their testimony at that time. Singh had already testified for the prosecution under oath, while Salame, who pleaded guilty, later made unsworn public statements recanting his plea, only to withdraw those claims. The judge deemed Salame's credibility deeply suspect and his statements insufficient to justify reopening the case.
The ruling highlighted a striking piece of evidence: a detailed PR playbook Bankman-Fried wrote after FTX's collapse but before his indictment. The document outlined a strategy to rehabilitate his image, including a media blitz, active social media posting, and appearances on major outlets, with specific tactics such as repositioning himself politically on television. The court found that Bankman-Fried had closely followed this script, even from prison, and that the new trial motion was merely the latest step in that campaign.
Bankman-Fried also sought Judge Kaplan's recusal, arguing he could not receive a fair hearing. The court dismissed this request as untimely, noting it came more than two years after the verdict. Under established procedural rules, such motions must be filed promptly, often within weeks of trial. The judge also rejected Bankman-Fried's attempt to withdraw the motion conditionally, allowing him to refile it later. The court stated that after the government had already expended significant resources responding, permitting such a maneuver would reward delay and waste judicial resources.
The decision leaves Bankman-Fried's conviction and 25-year sentence intact at the trial level, with his appeal still pending. For financial advisors, the case underscores a critical lesson: Bankman-Fried's central defense—that FTX customers recovered their funds through bankruptcy, thus negating harm—was rejected as misleading and immaterial. Recovery after the fact does not erase the underlying fraud. This principle is particularly relevant when evaluating platforms that hold client assets, especially those operating outside traditional regulatory frameworks. The FTX saga remains a stark reminder that custodial risk is real and due diligence is non-negotiable.
The case is United States of America v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, No. 1:22-cr-00673 (LAK), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Advisors may also find parallels in other recent rulings, such as the Sixth Circuit's rejection of a FINRA jurisdiction challenge, which raised questions about jury trial rights, or the North Carolina Business Court's invalidation of overbroad non-compete clauses, both of which highlight the importance of legal compliance in financial services.
