FTX’s Sam Bankman-Fried Seeks New Trial, Accuses Judge Kaplan of Prejudicing Case

• Bankman-Fried’s appeal claims Judge Kaplan’s rulings blocked key evidence, including investor recovery through FTX’s bankruptcy process.
• Bankman-Fried’s defense claims he was denied the chance to show FTX clients might recover their losses through bankruptcy.
• The appeal requests a new trial, citing Judge Kaplan’s actions as damaging to Bankman-Fried’s case and benefiting the prosecution.

FTX Founder, Sam Bankman-Fried appealed the decision of the judge. A request for a new trial comes from the chief defense attorney Alexandra Shapiro since Kaplan’s biased and limited decisions led to 25 years in prison on fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering charges assigned to Bankman-Fried.

The appeal focuses on decisions made by Judge Kaplan that, in Bankman-defense Fried’s view, restricted his capacity to offer material that was essential to his position. Specifically, Bankman-Fried couldn’t assert that FTX’s clients did not experience permanent financial losses.

His attorneys contended that investors would receive their money back from FTX through the bankruptcy recovery process . The story that was created benefited the prosecution because of this omission.

Claims of Misconduct and Prejudice

Shapiro further attacked the court for preventing Bankman-Fried from testifying regarding his reliance on legal counsel while making judgments at FTX . She further contended that Bankman-Fried’s rights were violated by the unusual need that he take a pre-testimony deposition, which gave the prosecution the opportunity to cross-examine him away from the jury. Shapiro further argued that Judge Kaplan had constantly damaged the defense throughout the trial, clouding the jury’s judgment.

In Bankman-Fried’s appeal, the government was charged with fabricating a story. Shapiro claims that the prosecution overstated FTX and Alameda Research’s insolvency while suppressing evidence showing the businesses were solvent but were experiencing a liquidity crisis as a result of illiquid investments. Judge Kaplan’s decisions, according to Shapiro, barred the defence from introducing these facts, which distorted the results of the trial.

Demand for a New Trial

A new trial presided over by a different judge is sought in Bankman-Fried’s appeal, which claims that Judge Kaplan conveyed a strong conviction in his guilt during the trial. The judge’s comments and actions throughout the trial, which Shapiro argues strongly benefited the prosecution, are highlighted in the appeal.

Bankman-Fried remains adamant about his innocence and hoping that the appeal will result in his case being reexamined.