Sam Bankman-Fried's legal team has formally asked the US Supreme Court to review his 2023 fraud conviction, arguing that an $11 billion forfeiture order violates the Eighth Amendment and that trial evidence on customer losses prejudiced the jury. If the justices grant the petition, a decision could come as early as June 2027.

Jeffrey Fisher, counsel at Hecker Fink LLP and Bankman-Fried's lead attorney on the SCOTUS appeal, laid out the timeline in an interview with Cointelegraph. The rules are tight. His client had 90 days from the Second Circuit's appellate decision to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court initially gave the US government until Oct. 15 to respond, then extended the deadline to Nov. 16 — a schedule that could let the justices decide whether to hear the case in late 2026 or early 2027.

The stakes run parallel to another track: Bankman-Fried is also seeking a presidential pardon from President Donald Trump, a request that may never be answered. The Supreme Court route is the one his lawyers can control.

What is the legal argument?

The petition rests on two pillars, both aimed at the foundations of the government's case rather than the facts of FTX's collapse.

At trial, prosecutors argued — and the Second Circuit agreed in its June 2026 ruling — that it was "immaterial as a matter of law" whether Bankman-Fried had the funds and intended to repay FTX's customers. "As the district court made clear, FTX customers were defrauded as soon as Bankman-Fried transferred their money to Alameda regardless of how strongly he believed he might later return the money," the Second Circuit said.

Fisher contends that framing crossed a line. "The Supreme Court has expressed concern over the years for prosecutorial overreach in criminal fraud prosecutions," he told Cointelegraph. "This kind of evidence introduced in this prosecution raises a real question about prejudice to the defendant."

The petition leans on competing precedents:

• The Supreme Court's 2025 ruling in Kousisis v. United States, which the petition says allows prosecutors to "seek decades-long prison sentences anytime people are induced by misrepresentations to part with their money — even if they suffer no pecuniary harm."
• The First Circuit's 2007 ruling in United States v. Carpenter, where a defendant "intended all along to ensure his customers suffered no financial losses," and where the appellate court found a jury verdict may have rested on "moral disapproval" rather than fraud evidence.

"Our whole point is the theory the government chose makes it irrelevant whether any customers lost money or, if so, how much," Fisher said.

Why does the $11 billion matter?

The forfeiture order is the second argument, and possibly the stronger one. Bankman-Fried was sentenced to 25 years in prison and ordered to pay $11 billion in forfeiture on seven felony fraud counts tied to misuse of customer funds at FTX, which filed for bankruptcy in November 2022. He is expected to remain in prison until 2043.

Fisher argues the debt will outlast the sentence itself. "He has no money to pay it," the lawyer said. "Under the terms of the penalty, it is an $11 billion debt for the rest of his life, to the government. Any dime he would ever make upon release would have to be turned over to the government [...] There's rules, maybe he gets to keep a dime."

Mark Bini, a former federal and state prosecutor now a partner at Reed Smith, put the odds in perspective. He told Cointelegraph the chance the court accepts the arguments and grants a new trial "seems low," though he called the forfeiture question "really interesting" given the size. Relying on Carpenter over Kousisis is an "uphill battle," he said.

If the court accepts the forfeiture argument but rejects the evidentiary claim, Bini said a reduced forfeiture amount is more likely than a new trial. "It's a very unusual case where the defense is arguing that 'gosh, everyone is being made whole' [...] yet you have this tremendous forfeiture," he noted, pointing to the tension between the government's entitlement to seek both forfeiture and restitution.

FTX users did begin receiving repayments in 2025, though valuations were based on token prices at the time of the 2022 collapse — meaning many creditors missed three years of market gains.

Where does Caroline Ellison land?

Former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison, who served prison time under a plea agreement with US authorities, has resurfaced at Manifund, a charitable fundraising organization tied to the effective altruism movement. She started a work trial on July 13, roughly six months after her release from federal custody, and took a full-time role on Aug. 10.

"I believe in redemption," Manifund co-founder and CEO Austin Chen said. "Caroline has admitted her faults, worked to make creditors whole, and served her time in prison. I'd like to give her the opportunity to contribute back to the world; I hope that the world will concur."

Ellison, in a rare public statement, said she was "grateful to Austin for giving me a second chance, and judging me on my current work performance rather than my past." Reaction was sharp: Coin Metrics co-founder Nic Carter called her "a cynical opportunist who stole billions, and got a sweetheart deal because prosecutors were willing to give everything up to get Sam."

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment on the Supreme Court petition. The government's response is now due Nov. 16, and a certiorari decision could follow in late 2026 or early 2027.