In a significant legal reversal, convicted FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried has formally withdrawn his request for a new trial. The move, detailed in an April 22, 2026 court filing, comes after the judge overseeing his case questioned whether the disgraced executive had received improper legal help while preparing his motions from prison. Bankman-Fried, however, maintains his push to have a different judge hear his case, alleging bias.
Sam Bankman-Fried Withdraws Rule 33 Motion
According to documents filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Bankman-Fried told Judge Lewis Kaplan he is pulling his Rule 33 motion for a new trial. This type of motion argues that new evidence warrants a retrial. Bankman-Fried stated he was the “ultimate author” of the prior filings but consulted with his parents. He claimed the need to answer the judge’s questions about attorney assistance diverted his focus from drafting a proper response to prosecutors. “I do not believe I will get a fair hearing on this topic in front of you,” Bankman-Fried wrote to Judge Kaplan. He withdrew the motion “without prejudice,” meaning he could theoretically file it again later.
Also read: Ethics standoff threatens Senate progress on CLARITY Act crypto bill ahead of Thursday markup
The Judge’s Scrutiny and a Mother’s Letter
This development follows heightened judicial scrutiny. In late March, Judge Kaplan ordered Bankman-Fried to clarify whether lawyers helped him with a pro se motion—a legal filing made on one’s own behalf without an attorney. This order came after U.S. prosecutors raised doubts. They noted Bankman-Fried’s mother, Barbara Fried, though lacking formal legal standing, had sent a letter to the court on her son’s behalf just days before he filed for an extension on his new trial request. Legal experts note this sequence put the court on alert for potential behind-the-scenes coaching, which could violate procedural rules for someone representing themselves.
A Legal Strategy Under Pressure
Bankman-Fried’s decision to withdraw rather than fight suggests a tactical retreat. “Facing a judge’s direct inquiry about improper assistance is a serious matter,” said a former federal prosecutor who requested anonymity to speak freely. “Withdrawing the motion cuts off that line of inquiry and avoids a potential adverse finding that could harm his broader appeal.” The implication is clear: preserving his main appeal in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is now the paramount objective.
Also read: Circle stock surges 15% after strong earnings, $222M ARC token presale fuels stablecoin optimism
The Ongoing Fight for a New Judge
Despite dropping the new trial bid, Bankman-Fried’s separate request for Judge Kaplan’s removal remains active. In a February filing, he accused Kaplan of showing “extreme prejudice” during his trial. He has asked that a different judge be assigned to any further proceedings on the trial court level. This request is still pending. Industry watchers note that such attempts to recuse a judge are rarely successful, especially after a conviction. They require clear evidence of personal bias, not just disagreement with judicial rulings.
Bankman-Fried’s direct appeal of his conviction and 25-year sentence continues separately in the Second Circuit. That appeal argues errors were made during his 2023 trial. Neither the appeal nor the recusal request was affected by Wednesday’s withdrawal.
Background: The FTX Collapse and Conviction
Sam Bankman-Fried, once a billionaire crypto wunderkind, co-founded FTX. The exchange collapsed in November 2022, revealing an $8 billion shortfall in customer funds. A jury found him guilty on seven counts of fraud and conspiracy in November 2023. Prosecutors proved he used customer deposits for venture investments, political donations, and lavish real estate. Judge Kaplan sentenced him to 25 years in prison in March 2024, calling his crimes “unusual in their scale and nature.” He is currently housed at the Federal Correctional Institution in Lompoc, California.
The Pardon Question and Political Maneuvering
Following his incarceration, Bankman-Fried has made public overtures toward former President Donald Trump. He has praised Trump’s crypto stance and suggested he would seek a pardon. His withdrawn new trial motion included claims that President Biden’s Justice Department “threatened” witnesses. In a January 2025 interview with The New York Times, Trump stated he had no intention of pardoning the former FTX CEO. This public posturing is seen by some analysts as a long-shot strategy to influence political discourse around his case, though its practical legal effect is likely minimal.
What This Means for the Broader Crypto Industry
The Bankman-Fried case remains a landmark for cryptocurrency regulation. His conviction demonstrated that federal fraud statutes fully apply to digital asset businesses. This latest procedural twist underscores that the legal aftermath is far from over. For investors, the drawn-out appeals process means continued uncertainty. It also serves as a persistent reminder of the risks that existed in the largely unregulated crypto market of the early 2020s.
Data from blockchain analytics firms shows that FTX creditor repayments, managed by bankruptcy officials, have proceeded independently of Bankman-Fried’s criminal appeals. The two processes are legally distinct. What this means for investors is that the fate of customer funds is not directly tied to the founder’s legal maneuvers.
Conclusion
Sam Bankman-Fried’s withdrawal of his motion for a new trial marks a tactical pivot in his long legal battle. While he steps back from one front, his core appeal and his unusual push to remove Judge Kaplan continue. The case continues to weave through the federal courts, reflecting the complex and protracted nature of white-collar crime litigation. For the crypto world, the saga remains a defining story of ambition, fraud, and accountability.
FAQs
Q1: What is a Rule 33 motion?
A Rule 33 motion is a request for a new criminal trial based on newly discovered evidence. It is an uphill battle, as courts require evidence that could not have been found before the original trial and that would likely lead to an acquittal.
Q2: Why did Judge Kaplan question Bankman-Fried about legal help?
When a defendant files pro se (representing themselves), the court must ensure they are truly acting alone to preserve their right to self-representation. If an attorney is secretly guiding them, it creates an unfair advantage and procedural issues.
Q3: Can Bankman-Fried still get a new trial?
Technically, yes, but the path is narrower. By withdrawing the motion “without prejudice,” he preserved the right to file it again later. However, he indicated he would only do so after his current appeal is decided, which could take years.
Q4: What are the grounds for his main appeal?
Bankman-Fried’s appeal to the Second Circuit likely challenges Judge Kaplan’s trial rulings, jury instructions, and sentencing decisions. Specific briefs are not yet public, but appeals often focus on alleged legal errors, not factual guilt.
Q5: Where is Sam Bankman-Fried serving his sentence?
As of April 2026, he is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution, Lompoc I, in California. It is a medium-security prison that houses male inmates.
Be the first to comment