Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York filed an opposition to Sam Bankman-Fried's motion for a new trial, characterizing his central claim, that the Biden-era Department of Justice selectively targeted him for political reasons, as "incoherent" and "fanciful" [1]. Bankman-Fried remains incarcerated, serving a 25-year federal sentence imposed following his October 2023 conviction on seven counts of fraud and conspiracy related to the collapse of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX [2].
In his February 2026 motion, Bankman-Fried argued that prosecutors pursued him due to political animus, a theory his legal team has framed around the broader debate over alleged DOJ overreach [2]. Prosecutors rejected that framing in their opposition, pointing to Bankman-Fried's own substantial political donations as evidence that the government's motivation was straightforward financial fraud, not partisan targeting [1]. The opposition contends that the record at trial, including testimony from co-conspirators and documentary evidence, independently supports the jury's verdict without reference to any claimed political motivation [1].
The new trial motion is one of two parallel proceedings testing the durability of Bankman-Fried's conviction. His direct appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit remains pending following oral arguments held in November 2025 [2]. That appeal raises distinct legal questions about the scope of fraud liability in the cryptocurrency context and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting several counts. Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over the trial in the Southern District of New York, has not yet ruled on the new trial motion [1][2].
The prosecution's opposition puts Judge Kaplan in the position of evaluating whether Bankman-Fried has met the demanding legal standard for post-conviction relief under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, which requires a showing that newly discovered evidence or a manifest injustice warrants setting aside the verdict. Courts grant such motions rarely. The simultaneous appellate track means that a denial by Judge Kaplan could be folded into further Second Circuit review, extending the litigation well into 2026 and potentially beyond.