Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York filed a detailed memorandum on March 11 opposing the imprisoned former FTX chief executive’s request for a retrial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. The filing asks the court to deny the motion outright, stating that the evidence cited by Bankman-Fried was already known before his 2023 trial and would not have altered the verdict.

The motion stems from a February filing in which Bankman-Fried, acting largely on his own behalf from prison, argued that newly discovered testimony from former FTX insiders—including Ryan Salame and Daniel Chapsky—could challenge the government’s narrative that he knowingly misused customer funds.

Prosecutors say the claim does not meet the legal standard required to overturn a jury verdict. “The purported evidence on which Bankman-Fried relies … does not come close to meeting the standard for a new trial,” the government wrote, adding that the witnesses referenced by the defense were “fully known to the defense before trial” and therefore cannot qualify as newly discovered evidence.

The government also rejected Bankman-Fried’s broader argument that FTX was merely illiquid rather than insolvent when it collapsed in November 2022. According to prosecutors, that claim is both factually inaccurate and legally irrelevant to the crimes charged.

“The motion’s most aggressive claim—that FTX was solvent, that customers have since been made whole, and that the prosecution therefore rested on a lie—is factually wrong, legally irrelevant, and deeply misleading,” the filing states.

Even if creditors eventually recover funds through bankruptcy proceedings, prosecutors argue that it does not erase the alleged misconduct. As the filing explains, criminal fraud is complete the moment funds are misappropriated. “A bank robber is not acquitted because the stolen funds were eventually recovered,” the memorandum says.

The government’s filing also revisits the evidence presented during the four-week trial that ended with Bankman-Fried’s conviction on seven counts of fraud and conspiracy. Prosecutors say the case included testimony from multiple former FTX executives, thousands of documents, financial records, internal messages, and expert analysis tracing how billions of dollars in customer deposits were diverted to the affiliated trading firm Alameda Research.

According to trial evidence summarized in the filing, Alameda ultimately borrowed roughly $8 billion in customer funds from the exchange, money that was then used for venture investments, loan repayments, political donations, and other expenditures.

Jurors deliberated for fewer than five hours before returning guilty verdicts on all counts, prosecutors noted, a sign they say the evidence against the former crypto executive was overwhelming.

The government also took aim at Bankman-Fried’s attempts to portray himself as the victim of a politicized prosecution. Prosecutors argued that the narrative contradicts his own history as a major political donor and appears to be part of a broader public relations strategy rather than a legitimate legal argument.

“The present motion … is merely the judicial phase of the same public relations campaign,” prosecutors wrote, referencing interviews and social media posts in which the former executive has criticized the bankruptcy process and denied criminal wrongdoing.

Under Rule 33, federal courts grant new trials only in rare circumstances when newly discovered evidence would probably lead to an acquittal. Prosecutors argue that standard is nowhere close to being met in this case.

“Motions for a new trial are disfavored” and granted “sparingly and in only the most extraordinary circumstances,” the government said in the filing.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who presided over the original trial, will ultimately decide whether Bankman-Fried’s request warrants further proceedings. For now, federal prosecutors are urging the court to let the jury’s verdict stand.

• Why is Sam Bankman-Fried seeking a new trial?
  He claims newly discovered evidence and potential witness testimony could challenge the government’s fraud case.
• What did prosecutors argue in response?
  They said the evidence cited by the defense was already known before trial and would not change the verdict.
• What legal rule governs requests for a new trial?
  Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 allows retrials only when newly discovered evidence would likely produce a different outcome.
• What happens next in the case?
  Judge Lewis A. Kaplan will decide whether to deny the motion or allow further proceedings.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。