FTX Executive Ryan Salame Accuses Biden DOJ of Political Bias in Prosecution

• Ryan Salame challenges federal prosecutors and claims political bias shaped his conviction and prison sentence.
• The case highlights sharp sentencing differences among FTX executives after the crypto exchange collapse.
• Political donations tied to FTX continue to raise questions about fairness in high profile federal prosecutions.

Ryan Salame, a former executive at FTX, has intensified the criticism against the Justice Department because he is serving a 90-month federal prison term. His indictments have rekindled the debate on prosecutor misconduct concerning the 2022 FTX collapse of a crypto exchange.

Salame is currently held at FCI Cumberland in Maryland after pleading guilty to campaign finance violations and operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business. His sentence exceeded government recommendations and stood out among penalties imposed on FTX insiders.

The renewed focus followed a detailed social media post published on January 1. The Justice Department has not issued a public response.

Salame claims federal prosecutors applied selective enforcement during the FTX investigation. He alleges authorities prioritized individuals instead of focusing on specific criminal conduct.

He asserts prosecutors ignored evidence supporting his compliance efforts. He also claims they limited testimony that could have challenged the government’s narrative. Salame maintains investigators treated him differently due to his political alignment. In the 2022 midterm elections, he gave about $23 million to primarily Republican candidates. In 2024, Ryan Salame’s prison sentence was reduced to six and a half years after a federal review of his case.

The public records indicate that most senior FTX figures backed Democratic campaigns. Salame argues this distinction influenced charging decisions. He also disputes his classification as a straw donor. He states his documented net worth reached hundreds of millions of dollars at the time.

A major component of Salame’s claims involves plea negotiations with federal prosecutors. He alleges investigators applied pressure involving his fiancée, Michelle Bond.

Bond was later indicted in August 2024. The prosecutors charged her with accepting a payoff in the form of a $400,000 payment tied to FTX and giving misleading evidence to federal authorities. Bond has pleaded innocent and is challenging the charges. Her defense argues prosecutors reversed earlier assurances connected to Salame’s plea.

At a November 2025 hearing, prosecutors rejected claims of promised immunity. Testimony suggested disagreements over the interpretation of informal discussions. Despite Salame’s cooperation, authorities proceeded with Bond’s prosecution. The case remains pending in federal court.

The conflict is occurring in the wider legal aftermath of the FTX crash. Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder, was sentenced to 25 years of large-scale financial fraud. A number of cooperating witnesses got lesser sentences following their cooperation with prosecutors. Salame did not testify against Bankman-Fried during the proceedings.

His sentence became one of the longest imposed on an FTX executive. Observers have linked that outcome to his refusal to cooperate further. Bankman-Fried’s social media account later amplified Salame’s claims. The repost reignited discussion about fairness within the prosecution.

Salame’s allegations align with broader claims of lawfare raised by other public figures. Outgoing New York City Mayor Eric Adams has raised similar concerns. The case has drawn attention to political donations linked to FTX. Both major parties benefited from contributions tied to the exchange.

Salame has referenced recent policy efforts aimed at limiting politically motivated prosecutions. He argues many defendants remain affected by earlier practices. Speculation around clemency has emerged, though no pardon has been issued. Other crypto figures have received relief in unrelated cases.

Meanwhile, FTX’s native token recorded a modest price increase following renewed attention. Market movement appeared disconnected from any legal developments. The charges still create a debate on accountability, politics, and prosecutor discretion in high-profile financial cases.