Overview
- At Tuesday’s oral argument in New York, the three-judge Second Circuit panel pressed Sam Bankman-Fried’s lawyer on claims that FTX’s collapse was a liquidity issue rather than fraud.
- Judges questioned the relevance of post‑bankruptcy recoveries and the defense’s lawyer-involvement narrative, noting that fraud does not require proof of ultimate economic loss.
- Defense counsel argued the trial was unfair because Judge Lewis Kaplan limited evidence on FTX’s solvency and advice-of-counsel themes and displayed bias that prejudiced the jury.
- Prosecutors cited cooperating witnesses and internal records to argue roughly $8 billion in customer deposits were funneled to Alameda Research and that later recoveries are not a legal defense.
- The panel issued no ruling, and as the appeal proceeds, Bankman-Fried’s family is reported to be exploring a presidential pardon while his mother published a 65-page defense on his Substack.