Can SBF's Appeal Succeed? Legal Experts Express Deep Skepticism

More than a year has passed since Sam Bankman-Fried faced the courtroom to answer for seven counts of fraud and conspiracy tied to FTX’s collapse. The former crypto entrepreneur was handed a 25-year federal prison sentence, yet the legal battle continues. This fall, SBF filed a major appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging his conviction and asking for a new trial. But can he actually win?

SBF’s New Legal Team Launches an Aggressive Strategy

After his trial lawyers stepped aside following the guilty verdict, SBF brought in Alexandra Shapiro as his new lead attorney. On September 13, 2024, Shapiro submitted a 102-page appeal document that fundamentally reframes the case. The filing argues that SBF never received a fair trial—that prosecutors, judges, and the prevailing media narrative all conspired to presume him guilty before proper evidence was presented.

“In the United States, people accused of crimes are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” the appeal stated. Shapiro contends this basic principle was violated throughout the trial process. Her document claims that SBF was treated unfairly from day one, when a specific narrative—that he stole billions and destroyed FTX—took hold without adequate scrutiny.

The Core Argument: Challenging Judge Kaplan on Brady Evidence

At the heart of SBF’s appeal lies the claim that Judge Lewis A. Kaplan deprived the jury of crucial “Brady” evidence—information favorable to the defendant that should have been presented. Shapiro argues the jury never learned that SBF made successful investments alongside his failures, such as his stake in Anthropic, the AI research company.

The appeal also resurrects SBF’s long-standing contention that FTX was never truly insolvent. Rather, the bankruptcy process has since revealed the exchange had billions in assets available to repay customers. Nearly all FTX creditors are now receiving 118% of their funds back, contradicting the original narrative of total theft.

This timing may have been intentional. The appeal arrived just three days after Caroline Ellison—SBF’s former colleague at Alameda Research and a key prosecution witness—saw her sentencing memo filed. While SBF faced 25 years, government lawyers requested no jail time for Ellison, highlighting the disparity in outcomes.

Why Courts Are Reluctant to Overturn Convictions

Yet multiple legal experts contacted by major outlets remain unconvinced that SBF’s strategy will work. The central problem: appellate courts rarely second-guess trial judges on matters of evidence and courtroom conduct. Tama Beth Kudman, a partner at the law firm Kudman Trachten Aloe Posner, explained the legal hurdle plainly.

“It’s just not very common for an appellate court to double-guess a case like this,” Kudman said. She noted that SBF’s lawyers would need to prove not only that Judge Kaplan showed bias, but also that this bias directly prejudiced the defendant—a significantly higher bar. “To allow the appeal to go forward, the Second Circuit would effectively be saying the original judge acted inappropriately. Appellate courts rarely do that,” Kudman added.

Furthermore, courts typically grant judges substantial discretion in controlling their own courtrooms and deciding which evidence to admit. Judge Kaplan is widely regarded as fair-minded and even-tempered. If he had felt conflicted, observers note, he would likely have recused himself.

The Insolvency Question: Why It May Not Matter

Joe Valenti, a partner in white-collar criminal law at Saul Ewing, offered another reason to doubt SBF’s prospects. He pointed out that even if FTX creditors are being fully repaid, this fact may not legally exonerate SBF. “It doesn’t matter if the money was paid back,” Valenti explained. “If you’re a cashier at the supermarket and you take $20 to go to the casino, it doesn’t matter if you give back the money the next day. You still took money from the grocery store.”

In other words, the crime in the charges against SBF hinges on the act itself—allegedly misappropriating customer funds—not on whether those funds were eventually recovered. The jury convicted him based on the conduct alleged, not on the ultimate financial outcome.

SBF’s Path Forward: Uphill But Not Impossible

Joshua Ashley Klayman, head of blockchain and fintech at Linklaters, acknowledged that timing could work in SBF’s favor in a limited way. With time creating distance from the immediate FTX crisis, and with mainstream media coverage of customer repayment circulating, SBF’s arguments might find a more receptive audience. “Perhaps SBF may hope that, with the passage of time, his arguments may be viewed in a different light,” Klayman suggested.

Still, the consensus among legal professionals is clear: SBF faces a genuinely difficult climb. The Second Circuit would need to find that trial procedures were fundamentally broken—not merely imperfect or unfavorable. That’s a threshold few appellants cross, regardless of the strength of their legal team or the resources behind them.

The case now rests with the appellate judges. Whether they agree that SBF deserved a fairer hearing, or whether they view the original trial as adequately sound, remains to be seen. For the crypto industry—already moving forward with rising markets and renewed investor interest—the resolution may feel like a footnote. For SBF, it represents possibly his last meaningful chance at legal vindication.