TL;DR
- FTX was solvent at the time of its collapse: Sam Bankman-Fried cites Dan Chapsky and claims users could have been repaid within months.
- SBF seeks a new trial from prison: he filed a Pro Se motion, supported by his mother, arguing that new evidence and testimonies could weaken the prosecution’s case.
- Bankman-Fried accuses witness pressure under the Biden administration and requests that Judge Kaplan recuse himself.
Sam Bankman-Fried maintains that FTX was solvent when it collapsed and that users could have been repaid in a matter of months. In a post on X, SBF cited a sworn declaration from Dan Chapsky, the company’s former head of data science, who calculated the firm’s financial position at the request of bankruptcy lawyers.
According to the document, FTX’s international arm faced an $8 billion liquidity shortfall on November 11, 2022, but its assets exceeded customer deposits. Chapsky noted that repayments could have been completed in months if the platform had not entered bankruptcy proceedings or shut down abruptly. Bankman-Fried added that an independent examiner from the bankruptcy court confirmed these conclusions.
SBF is serving a 25-year sentence for fraud related to FTX and is seeking a new trial from prison. The motion was filed Pro Se in a Manhattan federal court, with him representing himself, and supported by his mother, Barbara Fried. The filing argues that new evidence and witness accounts could weaken the prosecution’s case. Among the cited evidence is the absence of testimony from Ryan Salame, former FTX executive, who claimed he cooperated with prosecutors to protect his wife, who was later charged with alleged illegal campaign contributions.
Financial Situation Would Not Alter Sam Bankman-Fried’s Liability
The FTX founder accused the Department of Justice under the Biden administration of pressuring several witnesses to remain silent or change their statements. Bankman-Fried requested that his conviction be overturned and that Judge Lewis Kaplan recuse himself from the case. He noted that crypto companies were denied entry in the United States under that administration, while under the Trump administration the situation changed, with fewer DOJ interventions and greater opportunities to obtain licenses.
In previous appeals, the relevance of solvency in the case was questioned. Members of the appeals panel at the November hearing expressed skepticism about whether FTX’s financial situation was a central point in determining Bankman-Fried’s legal responsibility.
