Sam Bankman‑Fried filed a pro se motion seeking a new trial in the FTX fraud case, arguing that newly presented witness testimony and alleged government misconduct would have changed the outcome of his 2023 conviction. The motion, dated February 5, 2026 and docketed February 10, 2026 in Manhattan federal court, asks the trial judge to reconsider under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The filing frames the collapse of FTX as a liquidity crisis rather than an instance of theft, and contends that evidence showing the exchange’s solvency during the November 2022 run would have undercut central prosecution theories. The request is separate from Bankman‑Fried’s pending appeal and asks also that Judge Lewis Kaplan be recused from ruling on the motion.
Agree with almost all of this.
But FTX was never bankrupt. I never filed for it.
The lawyers took over the company and 4 hours later they filed a bogus bankruptcy so they could pilfer it for money. https://t.co/5YjqvPjFT3 pic.twitter.com/L7VWJK4Wny
— SBF (@SBF_FTX) February 10, 2026
Defense core claims and new evidence
At the center of the motion is a sworn declaration from Daniel Chapsky, former head of data science at FTX, which the filing asserts would have demonstrated that FTX — and related accounts such as Alameda Research’s ledger — maintained net positive balances through 2022. The defense argues this evidence supports a solvency narrative and would rebut the prosecution’s portrayal that customer funds were misappropriated for Alameda’s use.
The motion further alleges that the Department of Justice pressured or induced key witnesses, specifically former co‑CEO Ryan Salame and former executive Nishad Singh, to withhold or alter statements that would have been favorable to the defense. Bankman‑Fried contends those supposed concessions were never disclosed to the defense and that the government mischaracterized negative entries in a fiat ledger labeled [email protected] to create a false picture of insolvency.
Finally, the filing accuses the FTX bankruptcy estate of manipulating financial data used at trial to support the prosecution’s narrative. Taken together, the submission contends the newly disclosed testimony and alleged withholding of favorable material meet the criteria for a new trial because they could have affected the jury’s findings.
Legal standard, procedural posture and practical prospects
The motion was filed pro se, meaning Bankman‑Fried is representing himself for this request. Legal commentators cited in the motion and contemporaneous reporting describe such motions as a ‘long shot’ because Rule 33 requires newly discovered evidence that was unavailable at trial and that would probably produce an acquittal. The filing is distinct from, and does not substitute for, the separate appellate process.
Bankman‑Fried also asked Judge Kaplan to recuse himself from deciding the motion, alleging manifest prejudice in the trial judge’s prior conduct. The court will review the motion under established federal standards for newly discovered evidence, witness credibility, and any claims of prosecutorial nondisclosure.
Implications for custodians, exchanges and compliance teams
If the court accepts the premise that post‑trial evidence alters the insolvency analysis, the ruling could prompt renewed scrutiny of how on‑chain and off‑chain ledgers are interpreted in criminal prosecutions and bankruptcy proceedings. Compliance teams and custodians should note the defense’s emphasis on ledger semantics and witness access: litigation over the treatment of negative ledger entries and disclosure practices could affect protocols for record retention, witness cooperation and how insolvency is demonstrated in court. Regulators and industry operators will watch the court’s handling of alleged prosecutorial nondisclosure and judge recusal, as those outcomes bear on due process expectations for complex financial failures.