Can SBF Win His Federal Appeal? What Legal Experts Think

Nearly 18 months have passed since SBF received his 25-year prison sentence for his role in the FTX collapse, yet questions about whether his appellate challenge will succeed continue to dominate legal discussions. The fallen crypto entrepreneur filed his notice of appeal in September 2024 through new counsel, claiming his original trial was fundamentally unfair. But as the case moves through the federal system, legal experts remain decidedly skeptical about SBF’s chances of winning a new hearing.

The appeal hinges on SBF’s assertion that he was presumed guilty from the start—first by overeager prosecutors, then by the judge overseeing his trial. His legal team argues that the prevailing narrative about FTX’s insolvency shaped the entire proceeding without proper scrutiny of countervailing evidence.

SBF’s Core Argument: A Narrative Built on Shaky Ground

When SBF’s conviction was handed down, one dominant story had already calcified in the public mind: he had stolen billions in customer funds, bankrupted FTX, and caused massive losses. SBF’s legal team now contends this framing was accepted as gospel without adequate examination of alternative facts.

The new legal strategy centers on what SBF’s counsel views as prejudicial treatment. According to the 102-page appeal document filed by lead counsel Alexandra Shapiro, evidence favorable to the defendant—including profitable investments SBF made in companies like the AI startup Anthropic—was systematically excluded from jury consideration. The argument rests partially on Brady evidence doctrine, which prohibits prosecutors from withholding material evidence favorable to the defense.

“In the United States, people accused of crimes are presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt,” SBF’s appeal states. “Defendants have the right to rebut government evidence and present their side of the story. But none of that happened here.”

The Central Factual Dispute: Was FTX Actually Insolvent?

A critical element of SBF’s appellate challenge concerns the current state of FTX’s assets. Nearly two years after the exchange’s implosion, a starkly different picture has emerged than what the jury saw during the original trial. Under the bankruptcy settlement, creditors are being repaid in full or nearly full amounts—with recent reports indicating customers will recover approximately 118% of their holdings.

This development matters because SBF has consistently maintained that FTX maintained sufficient assets to meet customer obligations. If the bankruptcy process ultimately demonstrates that customers sustained minimal losses, SBF’s team argues, this evidence should have been available to jurors. The argument essentially holds that the defendant’s core claim—FTX was never actually insolvent—has been validated by the bankruptcy proceedings themselves.

The Legal Mountain: Why Retrial Appeals Face Long Odds

Despite SBF’s new litigation strategy, legal experts contacted for this analysis were uniform in their pessimism about appellate success. The hurdles for overturning a conviction through appeal are substantially higher than many observers realize.

According to Tama Beth Kudman, partner at the law firm Kudman Trachten Aloe Posner, appellate courts rarely second-guess trial judges on matters of evidence control and courtroom management. “It’s just not very common for an appellate court to double-guess a case like this,” Kudman explained. The court would need to find not merely that Judge Lewis A. Kaplan made questionable rulings, but that such rulings were so prejudicial and improper as to warrant a full retrial.

The burden is even more exacting: SBF’s legal team would need to demonstrate that the judge harbored actual bias against the defendant, and that this bias manifested in reversible error. Kudman noted that Kaplan is widely regarded as an even-tempered jurist of sound judgment. “I would have thought he would have stepped aside if there was any reason that he shouldn’t be hearing the case,” she said.

Joe Valenti, partner in the White Collar & Government Enforcement practice at law firm Saul Ewing, emphasized that appellate courts grant judges substantial discretion in evidentiary rulings. “Anything that’s tied to the reading of the facts, or the conduct of the courtroom, they give significant leeway to the court,” Valenti stated. Trial judges possess clear authority to manage their courtrooms in pursuit of expeditious justice, and excluding evidence from the record falls well within their purview.

The Brady Evidence Question: Stronger Argument or Procedural Trap?

SBF’s reliance on Brady doctrine—the principle that prosecutors must disclose exculpatory material—represents the most technically robust element of his appeal. However, even this avenue faces complications. The original prosecution would need to have deliberately withheld evidence, not merely failed to emphasize favorable facts.

Joshua Ashley Klayman, head of fintech and blockchain assets at the law firm Linklaters, observed that while Brady violations can theoretically justify retrials, the circumstances must be narrow and clear. Moreover, evidence about profitable investments or FTX’s eventual asset position might be characterized as cumulative rather than entirely exculpatory, weakening the argument.

Strategic Timing: Coordinating the Narrative

Some legal observers noted the appeal’s September 2024 filing date was strategically positioned—occurring just days after sentencing memoranda were submitted for Caroline Ellison, SBF’s former colleague whose cooperation as a prosecution witness proved instrumental. Ellison received a non-custodial sentence recommendation, starkly contrasting with SBF’s 25-year term.

“Without expressing a view on the likelihood of success, the timing of his filing may be strategic,” Klayman suggested. SBF’s legal team may be attempting to highlight what they characterize as disproportionate sentencing between the entrepreneur and his subordinate who cooperated with authorities. This narrative frame could resonate with appellate judges, even if the core conviction arguments face headwinds.

The Repayment Reframe: Did the Bankruptcy Vindicate SBF?

One potential advantage for SBF: news coverage of FTX creditor repayment has reached mainstream audiences largely unfamiliar with the case details. “Perhaps SBF and his counsel may hope that, with the passage of time, arguments that FTX customers didn’t actually lose money may be viewed in a different light,” Klayman noted.

However, legal experts were dismissive of this argument’s weight in appellate proceedings. As Valenti put it using a street-level analogy: “It doesn’t matter if the money was paid back. If you’re a cashier at the supermarket and you take $20 to go to the casino, it doesn’t matter if you give back the money the next day. You still took money from the grocery store.”

The action itself—misappropriation—remains criminal regardless of eventual restitution. This distinction could prove fatal to SBF’s appeal.

The Bottom Line: Long Odds and Uncertain Outcomes

While SBF’s new legal team has mounted a technically sophisticated appellate challenge, the consensus among experienced attorneys suggests meaningful victory is unlikely. The combination of judicial deference to trial judges, the narrow scope of Brady doctrine, and the strong evidentiary record compiled during the original trial create substantial obstacles.

That said, appellate processes can produce surprising outcomes, and SBF’s argument that FTX never truly became insolvent—now supported by bankruptcy recovery data—may resonate differently with a panel of appellate judges than it did with a jury focused on fraud charges.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals will ultimately determine whether SBF’s arguments warrant reconsideration or whether his conviction stands as delivered. For now, the legal community appears to view his chances as substantially limited, though not entirely without theoretical merit.