SBF's Lawyer Says $11 Billion Penalty Would Leave Him Broke for Life

The $11 billion fine imposed on Sam Bankman-Fried would leave him penniless for the rest of his life no matter when he is released, his Supreme Court attorney argues.

The petition, filed September 10 by attorney Jeffrey Fisher, contends the amount violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines. Fisher presented his arguments on Michael Smerconish's CNN radio show.

Why the Fine Hurts Sam Bankman-Fried More Than the Verdict

The $11 billion judgment does not recover funds the ex-billionaire still possesses. Instead, it orders him to pay an amount he does not own.

Michael Smerconish discusses my case and Supreme Court appeal. Judge Kaplan allowed the government to (falsely) claim over $10 billion of depositor losses — and prohibited me from responding. https://t.co/6CVRAU3Qim

— SBF (@SBF_FTX) September 14, 2026

Fisher contends that Bankman-Fried could never earn enough to pay off the amount. At his highest, the FTX founder had an estimated net worth between $26 billion and $26.5 billion in early to mid-2022 prior to the exchange's collapse.

The attorney links that safeguard to Magna Carta, a 13th-century English charter. Its rule held that a penalty must not deprive an offender of the means to earn a livelihood.

“Before we take away people’s liberty and resign them to a lifetime of poverty, we better be sure that they’ve gotten a fair shake in front of a jury,” Fisher said in the interview.

The timing works in his favor. In July, the Supreme Court agreed to take up Jouppi v. Alaska, a case concerning a $95,000 aircraft confiscated after a passenger brought a six-pack of beer into an alcohol-free village.

The connection is the constitutional clause, not the size of the penalty. Both a confiscated plane and an $11 billion judgment pose the same issue: at what point does a financial penalty become excessive?

Fisher, however, notes the cases frame the question differently. Jouppi asks if the punishment matches the offense. His petition asks whether it leaves the defendant without any ability to earn a living.

The Repayment Argument Cuts Both Ways

Fisher's second argument, presented in the petition submitted last week, is that the jury was informed about billions in customer losses but not about the subsequent repayments. He claims this omission prevented a fair trial and requires a retrial.

FTX's fifth distribution in July brought most customer groups to 105% of their claims. But because claims were valued at November 2022 prices, creditors did not benefit from the subsequent cryptocurrency rally.

According to Fisher, FTX's early investment in Anthropic contributed to the repayment of customers. However, the estate sold that stake prematurely, receiving about $1.3 billion in 2024 for a position currently valued at over $30 billion, BeInCrypto reported.

A federal appeals court dismissed those arguments in June. Smerconish recounted that trial judge Lewis Kaplan likened it to a thief who steals money, takes it to Las Vegas, and wins — the thief remains guilty.

The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to take up the case. The majority of petitions are denied.