Sam Bankman-Fried has filed a motion for a new trial on February 10, advancing a claim that reframes FTX's collapse not as fraud-driven insolvency but as a recoverable liquidity crisis. The motion invokes Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which permits courts to grant new trials when "the interest of justice so requires," typically when newly discovered evidence surfaces or fundamental trial errors taint the verdict. This procedural framework is critical, as it signals that Bankman-Fried is not merely contesting the verdict but also highlighting systemic issues in how the case was prosecuted.

SBF's filing argues both that testimony from silenced witnesses would have refuted the government's insolvency narrative and that prosecutorial intimidation denied him due process. This aspect of the motion points to a broader concern regarding the integrity of the judicial process and the potential biases that may arise in high-stakes financial cases. The legal proceedings around FTX are not just about the financial figures; they delve into the ethical standards governing prosecution and defense in complex financial fraud cases.

At the motion's center sits a striking numerical claim: FTX held a positive net asset value of $16.5 billion as of the November 2022 bankruptcy petition date. This assertion is particularly provocative because it suggests that the collapse of FTX was not as dire as portrayed by the prosecution. The implication is that if the estate can eventually repay customers, the trial's portrayal of billions in stolen, irrecoverable funds was misleading. This recharacterization of FTX's financial state challenges the narrative that has dominated public perception since the company declared bankruptcy.

According to Reuters, the bankruptcy plan contemplates distributing at least 118% of customers' November 2022 account values. Such a plan complicates the narrative of irrevocable loss, as it raises the prospect of actual recovery for customers who thought they had lost everything. However, the distinction between repayment and fraud remains contentious; the legal frameworks for bankruptcy and fraud assess different aspects of financial misconduct. This complexity underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of solvency within the context of crypto exchanges, where traditional accounting metrics often fail to capture the intricacies of liquidity, governance, and customer trust.

The implications of Bankman-Fried's motion extend beyond his trial. If the $16.5 billion NAV claim is accepted, it may shift the narrative around FTX from one of outright insolvency to a mere liquidity mismatch with potential recovery. This potential shift in narrative could have far-reaching consequences for regulatory approaches to cryptocurrency exchanges. It demonstrates the necessity for clear guidelines that delineate the responsibilities of exchanges in managing customer assets and liabilities effectively. The ongoing discourse surrounding FTX highlights the complexities of solvency in the crypto space, where traditional financial metrics often fall short in capturing the nuances of liquidity crises and governance failures.

Bankruptcy law fixes claims at a snapshot. Under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b), the value of creditor claims is determined as of the petition date, which in this case is November 11, 2022. For FTX customers, that means their entitlements were calculated using crypto prices from the depths of the 2022 market collapse. This methodology can be problematic, particularly when considering that crypto markets are notoriously volatile, and the values of assets can fluctuate significantly over short periods.

The court filings in the Bahamas proceedings make this explicit: claims for appreciation after the petition date are not part of the core customer entitlement. Consequently, when the estate announced distributions exceeding 100%, that percentage reflects petition-date dollar values, not the in-kind restoration of the specific tokens customers believed they held. This distinction is crucial in understanding the broader implications of the bankruptcy process on customer recovery. A customer who deposited one Bitcoin in 2021 does not receive one Bitcoin back. Instead, they receive the November 2022 dollar-equivalent value of the Bitcoin, plus a premium reflecting asset recoveries. This process reveals a fundamental tension between perceived value and actual recovery under bankruptcy law.

Moreover, customers objected precisely because the petition-date valuation mechanism excluded them from the crypto market's subsequent appreciation. Being paid “in full” under the bankruptcy doctrine can still mean being underpaid relative to the asset they thought they owned. This aspect of the case exemplifies the challenges faced by customers in navigating the complexities of crypto assets within a traditional legal framework, which often does not account for the unique characteristics of digital currencies.

The legal framework treats crypto balances as dollar-denominated claims, even when users experience them as specific-asset holdings with 24/7 withdrawal rights. This disjunction between how customers perceive their assets and how the law treats them can lead to significant discrepancies in recovery outcomes. Charting the price of Bitcoin, which rose from $16,000 at FTX's November 2022 bankruptcy petition date to over $100,000, illustrates the gap between dollar-based claims and in-kind asset appreciation. This disparity raises critical questions about the fairness of the bankruptcy system and its ability to adequately address the needs of crypto users.

MORE FROM COINTIMES

J.P. Morgan's Gold Forecast Signals Institutional Shift in 2026

J.P. Morgan's bullish gold forecast signals a shift, projecting prices at $6,300 by 2026, driven by structural demand changes and institutional reassessment.

FTX's motion treats solvency as a single accounting question: do assets exceed liabilities at a point in time? However, crypto exchanges face a more complex solvency architecture that operates across three dimensions. Accounting solvency, defined by net asset value, is the balance sheet view that the motion emphasizes. Even if the $16.5 billion figure is accurate, it depends entirely on valuation choices: which assets counted, at what haircuts, and how liabilities were defined. This complexity suggests that a simple balance sheet analysis may not suffice to capture the true state of a crypto exchange’s financial health.

The estate's recoveries benefited from venture capital stakes in companies like Anthropic that weren't immediately liquid in November 2022 but later returned substantial value. This situation highlights the importance of liquidity in assessing solvency. Liquidity solvency concerns whether crypto exchanges are structurally sound. Liabilities are on-demand, typically denominated in specific tokens, and confidence-sensitive. Academic work analyzing the 2022 “crypto winter” explicitly frames the period as a run-driven crisis. When FTX faced its liquidity crisis in November 2022, it processed roughly $5 billion in withdrawal requests over two days. This sudden spike in demand for withdrawals exemplifies the fragility of liquidity in the crypto markets, where a lack of confidence can lead to rapid destabilization.

The question wasn't whether the venture portfolio would eventually be worth something, but whether liquid, on-chain assets matched on-demand liabilities in real time. This mismatch is central to understanding the liquidity crisis that FTX experienced, and it raises important questions about the risk management practices employed by crypto exchanges. Governance solvency is where fraud enters, irrespective of recovery. Did the exchange represent that customer assets were segregated? Were conflicts of interest controlled? These questions persist even if the estate later recovers enough to pay claims. The IOSCO final recommendations on crypto-asset regulation treat conflicts of interest and custody/client-asset protection as central failure modes, distinct from simple insolvency. This emphasis on governance highlights the critical role that ethical practices play in maintaining customer trust and the overall stability of financial systems.

Trial testimony established that Alameda Research, Bankman-Fried's trading firm, ran what prosecutors described as a multi-billion-dollar deficit in its FTX user account, using customer deposits as collateral and operating capital. The government's case rested on misrepresentation, comprising customers being told that assets were segregated, misuse of funds, with funds commingled and lent to Alameda, and governance failure characterized by risk controls being bypassed or nonexistent. This detailed account of alleged misconduct underscores the gravity of the charges against Bankman-Fried and emphasizes the need for rigorous oversight in the rapidly evolving crypto landscape.

The motion argues that if customers can be repaid, the “billions in losses” narrative was false. However, fraud law and bankruptcy law ask different questions. Fraud focuses on what was represented at the time and what was done with customer property. Bankruptcy focuses on what creditors ultimately recover. This duality reflects the fundamental challenges inherent in reconciling different legal frameworks when it comes to financial misconduct in the crypto space. The legal complexities surrounding FTX are indicative of broader issues regarding how the law adapts to the unique characteristics of digital assets.

Even under the motion's own framing, the Debtors' estate initially claimed both FTX and FTX US were insolvent on November 11, 2022, then revised that view only after extensive asset recovery work. This evolution in the estate's position illustrates how solvency assessments depend on assumptions, and those assumptions change as illiquid assets get valued, disputes get resolved, and market conditions shift. The dynamic nature of these assessments underscores the importance of transparency and real-time information in maintaining customer confidence and ensuring the integrity of the financial system.

The courtroom-versus-ledger problem is particularly pertinent in the context of Bankman-Fried's motion. The motion ultimately asks: if customers end up financially whole under the bankruptcy plan, how can the trial's fraud narrative stand? The answer lies in the distinction between ex post recovery and ex ante conduct. Fraud isn't erased by later solvency, any more than a bank robbery is undone if the money is eventually returned. FTX's balance sheet and FTX's courtroom record tell different stories because they measure different things. The ledger asks whether the value was preserved. The trial asked whether the rules were followed, the representations were honest, and the risks were disclosed. This divergence in measurement illustrates the complexities inherent in cases involving financial misconduct and highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to regulation.

The fact that the estate recovered enough assets to pay claims at petition-date values does not resolve whether customer funds were misused, whether governance failed, or whether users were misled about the safety of their deposits. These unresolved questions underscore the potential for systemic risks within crypto markets and the continuing necessity for robust regulatory frameworks that prioritize consumer protection. The FTX case will be remembered not for its final recovery percentage but for exposing the gap between crypto solvency as a spreadsheet exercise and crypto solvency as a real-time, multi-dimensional governance question.

“Made whole” in bankruptcy terms can coexist with “defrauded” in criminal-law terms. The motion's $16.5 billion NAV claim doesn't dissolve that tension; rather, it makes it explicit. As the legal proceedings unfold, the implications of this case will likely reverberate throughout the cryptocurrency industry, prompting both regulatory bodies and industry participants to reevaluate their practices and approaches to governance. The outcome may shape the future of crypto regulation, emphasizing the need for transparency, accountability, and effective risk management practices to safeguard customer interests in an increasingly complex financial landscape.