FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried has returned to social media, alleging that U.S. prosecutors improperly pressured witnesses during his criminal trial and arguing that his conviction should be overturned. Summary Sam Bankman-Fried has resurfaced on X, alleging U.S. prosecutors improperly pressured witnesses during his FTX criminal trial and claiming the conviction should be overturned. He also called for U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan to recuse himself, accusing the judge of bias and prejudging defendants in his case. Reaction on X has been sharply negative, with users dismissing his claims and reiterating that misuse of customer funds constitutes fraud regardless of solvency. Sam Bankman-Fried demands judge’s recusal In a post published on X, Bankman-Fried claimed that “new evidence” shows the Biden administration’s Department of Justice threatened multiple witnesses into silence or encouraged them to change their testimony. He said this alleged conduct undermines the integrity of the trial and warrants throwing out his conviction. Bankman-Fried also called for U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan to recuse himself from ruling on the matter. He accused Kaplan of prejudging defendants and stacking proceedings against him, citing what he described as similar treatment toward former FTX executive Ryan Salame and U.S. President Donald Trump. The comments follow Bankman-Fried’s recent legal filings seeking a new trial, in which his defense argues that jurors were denied access to exculpatory evidence and that the court improperly limited witness testimony. His legal team has previously contended that key evidence related to FTX’s internal operations and bankruptcy process was excluded, weakening his ability to present a full defense. At this stage, Bankman-Fried’s allegations remain unproven. Bankman-Fried was convicted in 2023 on multiple counts of fraud and conspiracy tied to the collapse of FTX and is currently serving a lengthy federal prison sentence. His appeals and post-conviction motions remain ongoing, with courts yet to determine whether any procedural errors rise to the level required for a retrial. Reaction on X has been swift and overwhelmingly hostile. Many users rejected Bankman-Fried’s claims outright, arguing that misappropriating customer assets constitutes fraud regardless of solvency, with one post likening it to theft even if the property is later returned. Misappropriating assets and then lying about it is fraud, regardless of solvency. If I took your car for a joy ride, it would still be theft even if I returned it in one piece. Insolvency is not necessary to be fraud.— PaperImperium (@ImperiumPaper) February 11, 2026 Others responded more viscerally, using profanity and personal attacks to dismiss SBF’s credibility and citing sworn testimony from former associates as evidence against him, while some also questioned why he is still able to post publicly from jail following his unanimous conviction.
