SBF Fights for a New Trial as Caroline Ellison Rebuilds Her Career
Sam Bankman-Fried has taken his FTX fraud case to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging both his conviction and an $11.02 billion forfeiture as Caroline Ellison, one of the prosecution's most important witnesses, returns to professional life at nonprofit Manifund.
Summary:
- SBF is seeking a new trial at the Supreme Court.
- He is also challenging an $11.02 billion forfeiture.
- His appeal centers on evidence about FTX customer losses.
- Caroline Ellison has joined nonprofit Manifund.
SBF’s last major appeal targets the trial itself
According to NY Times, Bankman-Fried filed his Supreme Court petition on September 10 after the Second Circuit unanimously upheld his conviction in June.
The former FTX CEO was convicted on seven counts of fraud, conspiracy and money laundering in 2023. He is serving a 25-year prison sentence, followed by three years of supervised release. The judgment also imposed forfeiture of $11.02 billion.
The Supreme Court has not agreed to hear his case. Bankman-Fried is asking the justices to review the lower court decision, meaning his immediate challenge is securing enough support for the case to proceed at all.
His petition concentrates on two issues: what evidence the jury was allowed to hear about losses suffered by FTX customers and whether the enormous forfeiture order is constitutional.
Customer repayment sits at the center of his argument
Bankman-Fried’s lawyers argue that prosecutors were allowed to emphasize billions of dollars in customer losses while the defense was prevented from fully presenting evidence that FTX had assets capable of eventually covering customer claims.
That argument has gained another factual element since the 2023 trial. FTX’s bankruptcy process has produced distributions to creditors, which Bankman-Fried’s defense cites in arguing that the jury received an incomplete picture of the exchange’s financial position.
But eventual repayment does not erase the prosecution’s underlying theory.
The Second Circuit concluded that the relevant fraud occurred when customer funds were diverted to Alameda Research under false representations about how those assets would be handled. Whether creditors recovered money later did not undo conduct that had already occurred.
That leaves Bankman-Fried with a narrower question for the Supreme Court. If permanent financial loss is not necessary to establish fraud, how much evidence about losses should prosecutors be permitted to use when the defense cannot fully counter it with evidence about eventual recovery?
Kousisis gives SBF a new legal opening
Bankman-Fried’s petition draws on the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Kousisis v. United States, which held that wire fraud does not require an intent to cause net economic loss.
His lawyers are using that precedent to challenge how evidence was handled at his trial:
- What Kousisis established: Fraud can occur even when the victim ultimately receives equivalent economic value.
- What prosecutors showed: The jury heard evidence emphasizing billions of dollars in losses suffered by FTX customers.
- What SBF says was excluded: Evidence intended to show FTX and Alameda had enough assets to eventually repay customers.
- What he wants reviewed: Whether evidence of victim losses should have been admitted when financial loss itself was not required to prove the government’s fraud theory.
The argument does not ask the Supreme Court simply to reassess whether Bankman-Fried committed fraud. It raises a narrower evidentiary question that could apply beyond FTX: when financial loss is legally unnecessary to establish fraud, when should evidence of that loss be allowed to shape the jury’s decision?
The $11.02 billion forfeiture creates a second fight
Bankman-Fried is separately challenging the financial judgment under the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines.
The Second Circuit already rejected his arguments against the $11.02 billion forfeiture, including his claim that its size was unconstitutional.
His Supreme Court petition describes the judgment as a crushing financial penalty and asks the justices to review whether it is disproportionate to the offenses for which he was convicted.
READ MORE: Iran Turns to Crypto as Export Payments Move Beyond Banks
The distinction is important. The Court could theoretically consider the forfeiture question without overturning the seven-count conviction itself.
For Bankman-Fried, either outcome first requires something statistically uncommon: convincing the Supreme Court to accept the case.
Caroline Ellison resurfaces as “Carol”
As Bankman-Fried pursues another court challenge, former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison has re-entered public life through a job that reconnects her with another part of the pre-collapse FTX world.
Manifund co-founder Austin Chen announced on September 11 that Ellison had joined the nonprofit to develop its funding platform and research how philanthropic capital can be allocated effectively.
The announcement revealed that she had already been working there for almost two months.
Ellison began a work trial on July 13, moved into a full-time position on August 10 and published work and supported users under the pseudonym “Carol.”
The pseudonym creates an unusual tension for Manifund, which describes transparency as a core operating principle and publicly releases grant proposals, evaluations, finances, source code and even meeting notes. Chen acknowledged that keeping Ellison’s identity private compromised that standard.
Her first job after prison involves financial systems
Ellison’s responsibilities are notable given her history at Alameda.
Chen said her expertise in finance and systems management had already been useful at Manifund. One of her projects was a reconciliation tool that identified several incorrectly registered transactions in the organization’s database involving five- to six-figure amounts.
Her hiring also reconnects her with effective altruism, the philanthropic movement closely associated with Bankman-Fried before FTX collapsed. Chen said the FTX Future Fund provided seed funding for Manifold and influenced Manifund’s current approach to philanthropy.
Ellison pleaded guilty after FTX collapsed and became a central cooperating witness at Bankman-Fried’s trial. She received a two-year sentence and was released from federal custody in January 2026.
In her statement announcing the new role, she again acknowledged wrongdoing at Alameda and FTX and said she understood why some people might not want to work with her.
The two developments leave the FTX case at an unusual point nearly four years after the exchange collapsed. Ellison has completed her custodial sentence and returned to work, while the executive she testified against is asking the country’s highest court to reopen legal questions surrounding his trial.
The next consequential event is therefore procedural rather than financial: whether the Supreme Court agrees to hear Bankman-Fried’s petition. A rejection would leave the Second Circuit judgment, 25-year sentence and $11.02 billion forfeiture intact. Acceptance would give SBF something he has not secured in his previous appeal: another judicial review of the rules that shaped the FTX trial.
The information presented in this article is intended for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as financial, investment, or trading advice. Coinspress.com does not promote or advocate for any particular investment strategy, asset, or cryptocurrency project. Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile and unpredictable – always perform your own research and seek guidance from a qualified financial professional before making any investment decisions.
Alexander Stefanov
Reporter at CoinsPress
Alex is Editor-in-Chief of Coinspress and co-founder of Millennial Media Group, with nearly a decade of experience covering financial markets - crypto first, then everything else. It started in 2016 with Bitcoin. Like most people at the time, he didn't fully understand it - so he kept digging. Blockchain, tokenomics, the projects, the cycles. That curiosity never stopped, and eventually pulled him into traditional markets too: equities, commodities, macro. Not because he left crypto behind, but because you can't properly understand one without the other. What drives him is straightforward: he wants to know why something is happening, not just that it's happening. Most market coverage stops at the headline - price up, price down, here's a chart. Alex finds that kind of reporting actively unhelpful. If you walk away from an article without understanding the mechanism behind the move, what did you actually learn? He holds a degree in Tourism from New Bulgarian University - not the most obvious path into financial markets, but markets have a way of pulling in people who are simply too curious to stay out. He has authored over 200 in-depth analyses and more than 10,000 articles across crypto and traditional finance. He still thinks every day in markets teaches him something new. That's probably why he hasn't stopped.
