SBF lawyer outlines Supreme Court pitch as ex-FTX CEO seeks third round of appeals

Supreme Court petition takes shape for convicted FTX founder

Sam Bankman-Fried's lawyer has laid out the legal arguments behind his client's bid to take his criminal case to the US Supreme Court. The former FTX CEO, who was convicted in 2023 and lost his appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 2026, is asking the nation's highest court to review his conviction and a $11 billion forfeiture order.

Jeffrey Fisher, an attorney at Hecker Fink LLP representing Bankman-Fried in the Supreme Court appeal, discussed the potential timeline and legal theory with Cointelegraph. If the justices agree to hear the case, a decision could come as early as June 2027.

Bankman-Fried is simultaneously seeking a presidential pardon from Donald Trump, though Fisher noted that outcome remains uncertain.

Key points on the legal strategy

• Bankman-Fried was convicted on seven felony fraud counts for misusing customer funds at FTX, which collapsed in November 2022. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
• The Supreme Court initially gave the US government until Oct. 15 to respond to the petition, but granted an extension to Nov. 16.
• If the court grants review, it could rule in the current term ending June 2027, or during its next term.
• The petition argues that evidence showing how much customers lost should have been admissible at trial.
• A second argument claims the $11 billion forfeiture violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines.

The dispute over customer loss evidence

Prosecutors argued at trial — and the Second Circuit agreed in June 2026 — that it did not matter whether Bankman-Fried intended to repay victims or whether they ultimately lost money. The court said FTX customers were defrauded the moment their funds were moved to Alameda Research, regardless of any plan to return the money later.

Fisher challenged that approach, arguing the government's theory made victim-loss evidence irrelevant. "Our whole point is the theory the government chose makes it irrelevant whether any customers lost money or, if so, how much," he said.

The Supreme Court petition contrasts two legal precedents. Bankman-Fried's lawyers cite the 2025 case Kousisis v. United States, which allowed long prison sentences even when victims suffered no financial harm. But they argue United States v. Carpenter, a 2007 First Circuit case, is more applicable because the defendant in that case "intended all along to ensure his customers suffered no financial losses." That court had ruled the jury may have convicted based on moral disapproval rather than fraud evidence.

Mark Bini, a former prosecutor now at Reed Smith, told Cointelegraph that relying on Carpenter over Kousisis is an "uphill battle" legally. He also said the chance of the Supreme Court granting a new trial "seems low."