SBF’s Solvency Saga: The Whiff of Wunderground Bankruptcy Bootleway

by

Key Highlights

  • Bankman‑Fried’s legal quackery now demands a rematch, insisting the 2023 verdict was concocted on a false narrative of insolvency.
  • The motion alleges that bankruptcy clerks and federal prosecutors conspired on a “bogus” filing to siphon solvent assets for their own legal favors.
  • The legal wrangle claims that crucial evidence proving FTX could clear debts was deliberately suppressed during the original criminal showdown.

Sam Bankman‑Fried, founder of the once illustrious cryptocurrency exchange FTX, tendered a formal plea for a new trial on February 10, in the United States District Court. His arguable motion bares up that his earlier conviction for fraud and laundered money was born from a mistaken story about the exchange’s financial sobriety.

His counsel dares proclaim that the earlier trial suffered because vital evidence about FTX’s solvency was kept out of the light. The filing paints the verdict as a grand injustice wrought by bankruptcy clerks and federal prosecutors.

Look who has filed SBF’s pro se motion for a new trial: Professor Barbara H. Fried of Stanford. Inner City Press story coming with a 35‑page motion.

– Inner City Press (@innercitypress) February 10, 2026

“Exposing” FTX bankruptcy claims

The request for a retrial centers on the claim that FTX was, in fact, fully solvent at collapse, and that the bankruptcy filings were an unnecessary theater. Bankman‑Fried has gone to the social media galleries in full bluster, insisting that FTX could never have bankrupted and that he never personally filed for it.

SBF alleges that lawyers seized control of the company and filed a false bankruptcy four hours later to pilfer money from its vault. He backs this claim with testimony suggesting that FTX.us had enough assets to keep the lights on rather than dissolve the family of shareholders.

Allegations of political lawfare

On February 9, Bankman‑Fried accused the Department of Justice of smashing through “political lawfare” to fast‑track his conviction and secure a 25‑year sentence. He alleged that FTX was never truly bankrupt and that the insolvency narrative was a fabrication designed to facilitate a corporate takeover.

According to his post, internal memos showed that the tech team confirmed FTX.us was not affected by the wider deficit at FTX International. The filing cites Bankman‑Fried’s conversation with Mr. Miller, where he advised that FTX.us should hold back on filing for bankruptcy until it was clear that the assets were insufficient.

Dispute over retainer fee

However, the defense states that Mr. Miller insisted on involving the FTX.us bankruptcy because there was cash in this entity that would be used to pay the retainer fee of Sullivan and Cromwell, the case managers. Bankman‑Fried said that without the retainer fee paid by FTX.us, Sullivan and Cromwell would not be filing.

Challenging the current narrative

Through this claim that the bankruptcy was staged to raise legal costs rather than out of necessity, Bankman‑Fried is contesting the facts presented as evidence during his original criminal trial.

The lingering question remains: are the allegations about bankruptcy and FTX’s true financial state sufficient for a retrial to commence?

Read More

2026-02-11 00:22