By Samuel López | USA Herald

Sam Bankman-Fried is taking his fight over the FTX prosecution to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging both the evidence rules underlying his conviction and the multibillion-dollar forfeiture imposed afterward.

The incarcerated FTX founder sought review Thursday, September 10, arguing that the justices should resolve whether evidence concerning victims’ losses belongs in fraudulent-inducement prosecutions and whether his roughly $11 billion forfeiture is constitutional.

The filing follows a unanimous June 12 decision by the Second Circuit upholding his conviction. The appeals court rejected his argument that the trial judge improperly excluded evidence supporting his belief that FTX could cover customer withdrawals. Its reasoning was direct: transferring customers’ money through fraud does not become lawful because the defendant expects to return it. 

Bankman-Fried was convicted in November 2023 on seven fraud and conspiracy counts. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan sentenced him on March 28, 2024, to 25 years in prison and ordered $11 billion in forfeiture. The prosecution established that he diverted customer funds, defrauded FTX investors and deceived lenders to Alameda Research, his cryptocurrency trading firm. Justice Department

The evidence dispute raises a distinction that can easily disappear in arguments about whether customers eventually recover their money.

In Kousisis v. United States, decided in May 2025, the Supreme Court held that obtaining money or property through materially false pretenses can constitute federal fraud even when the defendant does not seek to cause an economic loss. Providing equivalent value does not automatically defeat the prosecution. Supreme Court opinion

But whether financial loss is a required element and whether particular financial evidence helps a jury assess deception are different questions. That distinction helps explain the significance of the evidentiary issue described in Bankman-Fried’s new challenge. It does not establish that the excluded evidence should have been admitted or that the verdict was wrong.

The forfeiture challenge presents a separate constitutional question. Although Bankman-Fried calls the obligation a “crushing fine,” the judgment is a forfeiture order. The terminology matters, but it does not end the constitutional inquiry.

In United States v. Bajakajian, the Supreme Court held that punitive forfeitures fall within the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause and violate it when grossly disproportionate to the offense. A large dollar amount alone does not establish that violation; the analysis compares the financial punishment with the gravity of the crime. Supreme Court opinion

For Bankman-Fried, these arguments seek review of distinct parts of the criminal judgment. Success against the forfeiture would not, by itself, erase the fraud conviction.

The immediate procedural question is whether the justices will accept the case. A petition asks them to exercise discretionary review; it is not an order granting a new hearing or overturning the judgment. Supreme Court overview

Enjoyed this report? Subscribe to the USA Herald newsletter for exclusive investigations and clear analysis of the legal decisions shaping your world. Follow us on X @RealUSAHerald.