Sam Bankman-Fried: Master of Appeals or Just a Misunderstood Entrepreneur?

by

Once upon a time, in a land not so far away-unless you happen to be a particularly slow-moving snail-there lived a chap named Sam Bankman-Fried. He was the chief wizard of FTX, a magical realm where money appeared out of thin air, or at least that’s what it felt like until the whole thing came tumbling down like an ill-constructed house of cards made by a toddler.

Now, our dear Sam has taken to waving his wand (or in legal terms, his appeal) at a recent decree from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He claims this ruling is akin to a beacon of hope shining down upon him, illuminating the dark corners of his own criminal trial like a flashlight in a particularly murky dungeon.

The Curious Case of the Missing Evidence

In what can only be described as a masterclass in courtroom theatrics, Sam argues that Judge Lewis Kaplan, the gatekeeper of his trial, played the role of a rather grumpy troll under the bridge. By blocking nearly all evidence that might explain why Sam made certain business decisions-like a cook who refuses to let anyone see the recipe-Kaplan allegedly turned the jury into a group of confused ducks, quacking away without any direction.

“Yesterday, the 2d Cir tossed out a conviction because Judge Kaplan excluded intent evidence like it was last week’s leftovers.

My pending 2d Cir appeal says: ‘Hey, me too!’

Kaplan was like a schoolyard bully, cutting off my testimony and tossing out anything that didn’t fit the government’s make-believe narrative.

For example, evidence showing we were just following the industry’s ‘how to not go broke’ playbook…”

– SBF (@SBF_FTX) February 19, 2026

Ah yes, the evidence that was escorted out of the courtroom faster than a cat in a room full of rocking chairs included golden nuggets of information showing that FTX’s practices were, indeed, standard fare in the bustling marketplace of financial wizardry. But alas, the jury, deprived of this enlightening knowledge, was left to ponder whether Sam had any nefarious intent or if he was simply a misguided hero in a tale gone awry.

The Government’s Own Blundering Closing Argument

But wait, there’s more! The appeal also points fingers at the gallant prosecutors, who, in their closing argument, managed to trip over their own shoelaces. They forgot to mention that no one in the courtroom could recall Sam directing anyone to break the law, which is sort of important when you’re trying to prove someone is a villain.

The filing dramatically states:

“And because they don’t focus on the ‘why,’ the government failed to mention in its summation that none of the witnesses at this trial testified that Sam told them to violate the law or did anything that suggested he was running a nefarious scheme. Back in 2019, Sam didn’t sit down with Gary and say, ‘Let’s conjure up FTX to pilfer customer funds!’ No witness stepped forward to say, ‘Sam told me to steal the cookies from the jar!’”

According to the appeal, this glaring omission was as central to the defense as a good cup of tea is to a British morning and should have been considered by the jury, who perhaps were too busy knitting sweaters for invisible cats to pay attention.

Read More

2026-02-19 19:00