Will SBF's Bid to Overturn His Conviction Succeed? Legal Experts Weigh In

Nearly 18 months have passed since Sam Bankman-Fried was found guilty on seven counts of wire fraud and conspiracy in connection with FTX’s catastrophic collapse. He was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison in March 2024. Now, SBF’s new legal team has filed an appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the conviction on the grounds that he was denied a fair trial. But legal experts remain deeply skeptical about his prospects.

On September 13, 2024, SBF’s lead appellate attorney, Alexandra Shapiro, submitted a 102-page appeal arguing that the original trial was fundamentally compromised. The filing challenges Judge Lewis A. Kaplan’s conduct throughout the proceedings and contends that crucial evidence favorable to the defendant—evidence that could have shifted the jury’s perspective—was improperly excluded from the record.

The Core of SBF’s Appeal Strategy

Shapiro’s filing rests on a central claim: that SBF was prejudged guilty before his trial even began. The appeal argues that a prevailing narrative—one initially crafted by FTX’s bankruptcy-appointed administrators and rapidly adopted by federal prosecutors—poisoned the legal process. This narrative portrayed Bankman-Fried as a straightforward thief who stole billions in customer funds and deliberately drove FTX into insolvency.

However, SBF’s legal team contends this story has been contradicted by subsequent bankruptcy proceedings. The appeal emphasizes that FTX turned out to possess sufficient assets to make creditors whole—in fact, the bankruptcy plan promises to repay customers at 118% of their claims. SBF has consistently maintained that FTX was never actually insolvent and was pushed into bankruptcy unnecessarily.

A second pillar of the appeal focuses on Brady evidence—material favorable to the defendant that prosecutors are obligated to disclose but allegedly failed to provide. Shapiro argues that Judge Kaplan excluded evidence showing SBF made successful investments, such as his stake in Anthropic, the AI startup. Defenders of SBF contend that presenting the full picture of his investment track record—mixing wins with losses—might have led jurors to view him as a sophisticated businessman rather than simply a criminal mastermind.

The Steep Legal Mountain Ahead

Despite SBF’s legal team’s efforts, appellate experts contacted about the case voiced considerable doubt that the conviction will be overturned.

“Appellate courts rarely second-guess decisions made by trial judges,” said Tama Beth Kudman, a partner at the litigation firm Kudman Trachten Aloe Posner. For SBF to prevail, his lawyers would need to demonstrate not merely that Judge Kaplan made errors, but that those errors reflected actual judicial bias and caused tangible prejudice to the defense—an exceptionally demanding standard to meet.

One pathway for SBF could involve proving that Kaplan harbored a personal conflict of interest that should have forced recusal. Yet no evidence of such a conflict has surfaced. Kudman noted that Kaplan enjoys a sterling reputation as an even-tempered jurist. “Had there been any legitimate reason for him to step aside, I believe he would have done so,” she observed.

Joe Valenti, a partner in the white-collar defense practice at law firm Saul Ewing, emphasized another obstacle: appellate courts grant trial judges broad discretion in managing courtroom proceedings and making evidentiary determinations. “As long as the judge meets a basic reasonableness threshold, appeals courts are reluctant to intervene,” Valenti explained. Judges wield considerable authority to control trials and exclude evidence in the interest of judicial efficiency—powers that remain well within their lawful authority.

Strategic Timing and the Ellison Comparison

Joshua Ashley Klayman, head of blockchain and digital assets at Linklaters, observed that the timing of SBF’s appeal—filed just three days after Caroline Ellison’s sentencing memorandum—may have been deliberately calibrated. Ellison, the former CEO of Alameda Research and occasional romantic partner of SBF, received a government recommendation against any custodial sentence, with prosecutors explicitly noting that the case against SBF would have been “virtually impossible to prove” without her cooperation and testimony.

SBF, by contrast, received a 25-year sentence. Klayman suggested that SBF’s legal team may be attempting to highlight this stark disparity and leverage public attention. “The filing’s timing could be strategic,” he noted, positioning SBF’s severe penalty against Ellison’s potential leniency.

The Creditor Repayment Wildcard

One potentially helpful development for SBF involves the progress of FTX’s bankruptcy proceedings. Major media outlets have reported extensively on FTX’s plans to compensate affected creditors—news that contradicts the prosecution’s core narrative about irreversible losses. Klayman suggested this shifting landscape could work in SBF’s favor. As time passes and creditors are demonstrably made whole, judges might be more receptive to arguments that customer funds were never genuinely lost.

However, Valenti pushed back on the relevance of repayment. “The fact that money was eventually returned doesn’t erase the original wrongdoing,” he argued, drawing a parallel to a cashier who steals $20 to gamble but repays it the next day—the underlying crime remains unchanged in the eyes of the law.

The Verdict: Long Odds for SBF

As the Second Circuit Court of Appeals considers SBF’s petition, the consensus among legal practitioners is sobering. The hurdles are formidable: appellate courts rarely overturn trial convictions, judges command substantial deference on evidentiary matters, and SBF would need to prove not just error but bias. While the improving fortunes of FTX creditors and the contrast with Ellison’s lighter sentence may provide subtle ammunition, legal experts remain unconvinced these factors will ultimately succeed in securing SBF a new trial. The appeal represents his formal challenge to the system, but the practical likelihood of success remains low.