2026-09-10T20:40:26.808Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：约翰·弗里策
3小时前
发布于 2026年9月10日 美国东部时间下午4:40
山姆·班克曼-弗里德 加密货币 最高法院
查看所有相关话题
2023年7月，山姆·班克曼-弗里德在审判前的保释听证会结束后离开纽约联邦法院。
安吉拉·维斯/法新社/盖蒂图片社
因秘密挪用投资者数十亿美元资金实施诈骗而被判有罪的前加密货币大亨山姆·班克曼-弗里德，于周四向最高法院申请重审，并要求撤销要求其支付110亿美元赔偿金的判决附带命令。
2024年，班克曼-弗里德被判处25年监禁。检方指控他从加密货币交易所FTX挪用数十亿美元，转入其控制的名为阿拉米达研究的对冲基金，用于高风险投资、政治捐款以及满足个人私利。
经美国有线电视新闻网审核的这份最高法院上诉状，就审判期间提交的证据提出了一个技术性问题，即是否应当允许班克曼-弗里德证明其投资最终是稳健的，本可以弥补FTX客户的任何损失。
他还辩称，110亿美元的没收罚款违反了第八修正案中关于禁止过度罚款的规定。
“如果政府采用的诈骗理论认为，无论受害者是否蒙受损失都构成犯罪，那么提交表明受害者确实遭受损失的证据会分散陪审团注意力且带有偏见，”资深最高法院律师杰弗里·费舍尔告诉CNN。“尤其是当事实是受害者并未蒙受损失，而被告却无法澄清这一点时，情况更是如此。”
美国第二巡回上诉法院今年早些时候驳回了这些辩护理由。
此案在很大程度上取决于最高法院最近的一项裁决。该案涉及一名美国交通部承包商，该承包商为获得一份价值数百万美元的桥梁涂装合同，承诺符合弱势企业参与要求，但最终并未与弱势企业合作，而是设立了一个转付计划，并提交虚假证明来掩盖这一安排。
在检方成功获取电信诈骗和共谋罪的定罪后，该公司及其负责人向最高法院提起上诉，辩称如果被告从未意图造成经济损失，此类欺骗行为不应构成电信诈骗。毕竟，工程已经完工。
2025年，最高法院一致驳回了这一上诉。
班克曼-弗里德的上诉请求认可了这一判决，但提出了一个更微妙的问题：如果检方根据最高法院去年采纳的“欺诈诱引”理论提起诈骗指控时，无需证明经济损失，那么检方究竟为何还能被允许提交经济损失相关证据？班克曼-弗里德辩称，即便检方可以这么做，被告也应当有权提交相反方向的证据。
最高法院将于今年晚些时候审理该上诉案。
山姆·班克曼-弗里德 加密货币 最高法院
查看所有相关话题
Former crypto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried appeals conviction to Supreme Court
2026-09-10T20:40:26.808Z / CNN
By John Fritze
3 hr ago
PUBLISHED Sep 10, 2026, 4:40 PM ET
Sam Bankman-Fried Crypto Supreme Court
See all topics
Sam Bankman-Fried leaves the Federal Courthouse in New York in July 2023 following a bail hearing ahead of his trial.
Angela Weiss/AFP/Getty Images
Sam Bankman-Fried, the former crypto mogul who was convicted of defrauding investors by secretly diverting billions of dollars of their money, asked the Supreme Court on Thursday for a new trial and to throw out a court order requiring him to pay $11 billion as part of his sentence.
Bankman-Fried was sentenced to 25 years in prison in 2024 after prosecutors said he directed billions of dollars from the crypto exchange FTX to a hedge fund he controlled called Alameda Research, where the funds were used for risky investments, political donations and his own personal benefit.
The Supreme Court appeal, which was reviewed by CNN, raises a technical question about evidence that was submitted at his trial, and whether Bankman-Fried should have been permitted to demonstrate that his investments were ultimately sound and would have covered any losses by FTX customers.
He also argues that the $11 billion forfeiture violates the 8th Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines.
“Where the government pursues a theory of fraud under which it doesn’t matter whether any victims lost money, introducing evidence suggesting that people actually lost money is distracting and prejudicial,” veteran Supreme Court attorney Jeffrey Fisher told CNN. “All the more so where the truth is the victims did not lose money, and the defendant is unable to make that clear.”
The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the arguments earlier this year.
The case hinges in large part on a recent decision from the Supreme Court centered on a US Department of Transportation contractor who promised to meet disadvantaged business requirements to secure a multi-million-dollar bridge painting contract. The contractor ultimately failed to work with that disadvantaged business, instead setting up a passthrough scheme and submitting false certifications to cover up the arrangement.
After prosecutors secured wire fraud and conspiracy convictions, the company and its manager appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that such a deception couldn’t constitute wire fraud if the defendants never intended to cause economic harm. After all, the work was completed.
The Supreme Court rejected that appeal unanimously in 2025.
Bankman-Fried’s claim acknowledged that decision but raises a more nuanced question. If prosecutors don’t need to demonstrate economic loss to bring fraud charges under the “fraudulent inducement” theory the high court embraced last year, then why allow prosecutors to admit evidence of economic loss at all? And if they can do so, Bankman-Fried argues, then defendants should be able to submit evidence working the other direction.
The Supreme Court will review the appeal later this year.
Sam Bankman-Fried Crypto Supreme Court
See all topics
发表回复