Former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried Accused of Lying to Gain Trump’s Support

Federal prosecutors have established a pattern of misrepresentations by Sam Bankman-Fried in his latest attempt to secure a new trial, according to a review of court records and established facts.

Bankman-Fried, the disgraced founder of cryptocurrency exchange FTX, has launched a public campaign on social media platform X that appears designed to bolster his recent legal filing seeking a retrial. His posts characterize himself as a victim of politically motivated “lawfare” while alleging prosecutorial misconduct and judicial bias.

The former crypto billionaire was convicted on seven counts of fraud and conspiracy last November after FTX collapsed spectacularly in late 2022. The exchange’s implosion revealed the misappropriation of billions in customer funds that had been secretly transferred to Bankman-Fried’s hedge fund, Alameda Research.

In one post, Bankman-Fried draws a parallel between himself and former President Donald Trump, claiming both were “gagged” by Judge Lewis Kaplan. Court records reveal this comparison is fundamentally flawed. While Judge Kaplan presided over Trump’s civil defamation case and imposed standard courtroom conduct limitations, he never issued a formal public gag order against Trump. Trump’s actual criminal gag orders came from different judges in entirely separate cases.

Bankman-Fried, in contrast, was subject to a criminal gag order after repeatedly violating his pretrial release conditions – a standard judicial response to protect the integrity of proceedings.

The FTX founder also continues to insist that FTX “was always solvent” and that prosecutors falsely claimed customer funds were stolen. This argument formed the cornerstone of his defense strategy during trial but was unanimously rejected by the jury, which determined that customer assets were indeed misused and misrepresented to investors and users.

Legal experts note that federal courts have consistently maintained that post-collapse asset recoveries – which FTX bankruptcy administrators have been pursuing aggressively – do not retroactively establish solvency at the time funds were misappropriated.

In another post, Bankman-Fried claims that Trump “fired” Danielle Sassoon, one of his prosecutors from the Southern District of New York. Public records contradict this assertion, showing that Sassoon resigned after refusing a Department of Justice directive in an unrelated corruption case. Her departure had no direct connection to the FTX prosecution.

Bankman-Fried’s social media campaign also attempts to frame his prosecution as politically motivated, suggesting the Biden administration targeted him because he opposed SEC Chair Gary Gensler, donated to Republicans, and represented cryptocurrency industry interests in Washington.

This narrative conveniently overlooks that Bankman-Fried himself was a significant donor to President Biden’s campaign and Democratic causes generally. OpenSecrets data shows he contributed over $40 million to Democratic candidates and affiliated groups in 2022 alone, making him one of the party’s largest donors that election cycle.

Moreover, no court filings or rulings have substantiated claims that political donations or regulatory lobbying motivated the prosecution. The case against Bankman-Fried was built on substantial documentary evidence, internal communications, and testimony from multiple former FTX executives who pleaded guilty and cooperated with authorities.

In his posts, Bankman-Fried also defends former FTX co-CEO Ryan Salame, claiming he was coerced into pleading guilty and prevented from presenting exculpatory evidence. Court records tell a different story: Salame voluntarily pleaded guilty to campaign finance and money-transmission violations and has acknowledged those pleas in court. His sentencing record contains no judicial finding that evidence was unlawfully suppressed.

The timing of Bankman-Fried’s public relations offensive comes as he awaits sentencing, currently scheduled for March 28. He faces up to 110 years in prison, though legal analysts expect a shorter sentence given federal sentencing guidelines. His legal team’s request for a new trial appears to face significant hurdles, as it must overcome the substantial evidence presented during the original four-week trial that led to his conviction.