[HN Gopher] The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Frie...
___________________________________________________________________
The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment
[pdf]
Author : dereg
Score : 342 points
Date : 2022-12-13 15:14 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.justice.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.justice.gov)
| phire wrote:
| What are these campaign finance charges doing here? They seem to
| be completely unrelated to the FTX collapse, he is accused of
| bypassing campigan finance limits by donating under other
| people's names.
|
| Was he already under investigation for these, or was it something
| they discovered while investigating FTX?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _What are these campaign finance charges doing here?_
|
| If police get a warrant to search your basement for heroin and
| find a pile of dead bodies, what do you think happens next?
| hall0ween wrote:
| A _really_ disturbing party?
| [deleted]
| politician wrote:
| It's interesting that the US gets priority on prosecution here
| when the losses internationally are far in excess of those of US
| creditors.
| gnfargbl wrote:
| The SEC is claiming that of the $1.8bn raised by FTX, $1.1bn
| came from US investors [1].
|
| [1] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-219
| AcerbicZero wrote:
| I guess we'll get to see what 3 billion dollars and a well
| connected mother can buy you; I doubt it'll be a free pass, but
| I'm not expecting anything that resembles justice here.
| vlunkr wrote:
| Just a few days ago people on HN were saying he probably won't
| get in much trouble, then he was promptly arrested and they're
| already bringing the case against him. Maybe you could put your
| preconceived ideas down for a second and see what's actually
| happening.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| Corruption works when one is still rich. If the dude's got
| nothing now (or nothing he can get access too and others
| can't), he's not worth very much.
| axus wrote:
| Was listening to C-SPAN, they said his written statement for the
| record of the hearing was very offensive. "I would like to state,
| under oath," and then two words they wouldn't repeat.
|
| Doing a Google search of "SBF Fuck You" shows he's already told
| regulators and his lawyers to go F themselves, I'm guessing he
| said the same to the US Congress.
| TideAd wrote:
| it was "I fucked up"
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenehrlich/2022/12/13/exclus...
| kiernanmcgowan wrote:
| Maybe this guy _isn 't_ as smart as he thinks he is.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| Forbes published it:
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenehrlich/2022/12/13/exclus...
|
| He said "I fucked up" which would get C-SPAN in trouble with
| the FCC.
|
| It is a very defiant and entitled sounding statement though.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| No it wouldn't. C-Span isn't broadcast for one thing, for a
| second it's newsworthy, and for a third they could just
| say/write 'I f**ed up'
|
| The US is so babyish about this stuff. One day people shout
| about free speech absolutism, another day they hold mock
| fainting fits over common swear words that virtually everyone
| uses. In other countries this would not merit anything more
| than an arched eyebrow on the part of a newsreader.
| chaostheory wrote:
| The US, like the EU, isn't a monoculture.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Then again, some people are hypocrites.
| dereg wrote:
| It should be noted that SBF is facing 165 years in prison.
| [deleted]
| ivraatiems wrote:
| That's a maximum sentence, which is unlikely to match what he's
| realistically convicted of.[0]
|
| Still, he is likely to spend decades in jail.
|
| https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...
| ctrl-f "guidelines"
| likpok wrote:
| Running through the sentencing guidelines on the wire fraud
| hits 15-life real fast though. The sentence increases with
| the amount stolen and he stole a LOT of money (so much that
| the table doesn't cover it! It only goes up to $550 million).
| mikeyouse wrote:
| So aside from the totaling the points on sentencing
| guidelines, wire fraud actually maxes at a 20-year sentence
| per statute, and like Elizabeth Holmes, convictions for
| multiple counts are usually served concurrently. SBF fucked
| up a bit in that wire fraud that affects financial
| institutions (Counts 3/4) max at 30-years. But as a first
| offender, it'd be highly unlikely he sees more than half of
| that.
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1343
| rootusrootus wrote:
| This was said about Holmes, too. It matters what he
| actually ends up convicted of. Early speculation always
| runs high.
| shanebellone wrote:
| If this happened before her trial, she might have walked
| imo.
| tptacek wrote:
| Not so much. Holmes guideline sentence redlined the
| sentencing levels too; she got a significantly lower
| sentence than the guidelines allowed.
| dopamean wrote:
| I got downvoted yesterday for implying this. Is it true
| that her sentencing was "right in the middle?"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33963823
| tptacek wrote:
| I'm fuzzy on this too. Her sentence was close to what the
| prosecution asked for, but the prosecution also seems to
| have asked for something much lower than the guidelines
| allowed --- so did the PSR.
| yourapostasy wrote:
| I thought it was standard federal prosecution practice to put
| up huge potential sentencing numbers, then negotiate downwards
| in hopes of securing a swift process, and therefore the initial
| indictment-implied sentencing number carries very little
| context?
| kasey_junk wrote:
| It's not even a negotiation tactic, the defendants lawyers
| know the sentencing guidelines. It's a news release tactic.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Annoyingly, news outlets just recycle the hype. Tired of
| everything being exaggerated for attention in modern
| society, this is one reason faith in social institutions is
| on the wane.
| tptacek wrote:
| This is the rare occasion where the hype sentence might
| actually give you the spirit of how serious the charges
| are; he's "really exploring the space", as Bruce
| Dickinson might say, of how severe you can make a wire
| fraud charge be.
| okasaki wrote:
| Is there some reason why this kind of stuff is typed up on a
| typwriter?
| joegahona wrote:
| Yes! Also, why do they feel the need to do the "a/k/a SBF"
| after every mention of the guy's name? Say it the first time
| then just call him SBF thereafter. I think Typewriter Guy must
| be paid by the character. Another petty thing: I've never seek
| "a/k/a" with slashes like that before -- "aka" is sanctioned by
| Merriam-Webster, and "a.k.a." is also acceptable for
| constipated purists and The New Yorker.
| millzlane wrote:
| Probably an 80's kid. I remember writing a/k/a like that and
| I distinctly remember running essays through a character
| counter and adding filler words.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _never seek "a/k/a" with slashes like that before_
|
| F/k/a is also common. I only see it in legal and compliance
| contexts.
| [deleted]
| darcys22 wrote:
| This was my exact thoughts too! surely human beings from the
| 21st century could have improved on this.
|
| However I'm also pretty sure that lawyers have found a loophole
| to prevent their jobs from being automated, if you just make
| using technology illegal/"not to standard" then they can keep
| billing $500 per hour to use a typewriter
| abeyer wrote:
| There's some discussion at https://typographyforlawyers.com/
| about the current state of things, rules and requirements, and
| how to improve things.
| Macha wrote:
| Various legal systems have standards for the form for which
| documents should be submitted to them which are surprisingly
| nitpicky in terms of items like fonts and spacing. Of course,
| these standards were created when typewriters were the dominant
| use case, so had deference to what typewriters could actually
| do. Even though most of the typewriter use has fallen out of
| fashion, the standards remain, with the results that the
| documents look like they came out of a typewriter even if (as I
| suspect in this case) it's just been printed then faxed.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Consistency also means that rules that state "pages" are
| meaningful limits, not something subject to unresitricted
| gaming, and that they retain that over time.
| jdgoesmarching wrote:
| At this point it also probably makes it easier for law-
| specific OCR software to round up the standard metadata. With
| the sheer volume of paperwork in that industry, nobody is
| interested in reinventing the regex wheel for every document.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| Not to mention the real cost of every person reading each
| document having to relearn how this document is laid out vs
| every other document. There is a non-trivial human cost to
| not having a standard document format. Even if it is old
| and crusty.
|
| Also looks like most courts have a style guide for you to
| follow:
| https://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/Manual_of_style.pdf
| SilasX wrote:
| Doesn't explain why they'd never get with the time and accept
| electronic submissions, which are probably easier on their
| end too.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Federal courts accept (and often have rules requiring-by-
| default, for most purpose) electronic submission.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Also it makes things more equal. Like appellant courts can
| tell only x number of pages. And for that sort of limit to
| make sense the line spacing, font size and margins need to be
| consistent. With only set of fonts allowed.
|
| Courts really don't want to argue about how any submission is
| laid out and in best case they get to just throw out
| something looking wrong saving their time.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| Direct link to PDF without Javascript: curl -s
| https://www.docdroid.net/kxfZltq/unsealed-indictment-in-us-v-
| bankman-fried-22-cr-673-abrams-as-sam-bankman-fried-of-ftx-heads-
| to-sdny-echoes-of-onecoin-and-un-bribery-cases-pdf \ |tr
| -d '\134'|sed -n 's/u0026/\&/g;s/.*\"application\/pdf\",\"uri\":\
| "//;s/\".*//;/https:/p'
|
| Q+D script using curl to download from "DocDroid"
| #!/bin/sh read X Y; unset Y;Y=${X##*/}; echo
| "$X" \ |sed 's/^/url=/' \ |curl -4sK- \ |tr
| -d '\134' \ |sed -n 's/u0026/\&/g;s/.*\"application\/pdf\"
| ,\"uri\":\"//;s/\".*//;s/https:/url=&/p' \ |curl -4o
| "$Y".pdf -K-
|
| For example, echo
| https://www.docdroid.net/kxfZltq/unsealed-indictment-in-us-v-
| bankman-fried-22-cr-673-abrams-as-sam-bankman-fried-of-ftx-heads-
| to-sdny-echoes-of-onecoin-and-un-bribery-cases-pdf \
| |1.sh; muPDF unsealed-indictment-in-us-v-bankman-
| fried-22-cr-673-abrams-as-sam-bankman-fried-of-ftx-heads-to-sdny-
| echoes-of-onecoin-and-un-bribery-cases-pdf.pdf
|
| More DocDroid URLs can be found at
|
| https://www.reddit.com/domain/docdroid.net
|
| and of course
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=docdroid.net
| dang wrote:
| Thanks. We've since changed the URL from
| https://www.docdroid.net/kxfZltq/unsealed-indictment-in-us-v...
| to the proper source, which I assume is a direct link with no
| fuss.
| [deleted]
| jayess wrote:
| I'm a civil lawyer, not criminal, but maybe a criminal lawyer can
| chime in. Don't they have to allege specific facts in an
| indictment? If I were served with this as a civil complaint, it
| would be deficient on its face.
| johndhi wrote:
| Also a civil lawyer so not certain but I know there's a saying:
| "you can indict a ham sandwich," meaning the standard is very
| low.
| [deleted]
| ivraatiems wrote:
| How anyone could look at this man's behavior over the last few
| weeks and _not_ think he was on a fast track to a federal
| penitentiary is beyond me.
|
| A word to the unwise: If you have done something, anything, that
| you have a credible reason to believe the United States
| government thinks is illegal, _shut up_. Do not do any of the
| following:
|
| * Go on a podcast and talk about it
|
| * Go on a Twitter livestream and talk about it
|
| * Tweet about it
|
| * Answer questions from those you committed the crime against
| about it
|
| * Speak to journalists about it
|
| Instead, _shut up_. Shut up shut up shut up shut up. Your defense
| attorneys and your ankle will thank you.
|
| It does not matter whether it was an honest mistake or not. It
| does not matter whether you agree, philosophically, that it ought
| to be illegal. It does not matter whether Congress wants to talk
| to you about it first. It doesn't matter whether you've lived a
| life so sheltered and privileged that you cannot conceive of the
| idea that anyone from the government might be out to get you.
|
| Imagine the US Justice Department as an extremely patient,
| extremely hungry predator, and yourself as a delicious, plump
| prey animal with two broken legs hiding behind a rock. _Anything_
| you do or say to anybody except your lawyer will be used against
| you. So shut up.
| birracerveza wrote:
| No, no, let him talk.
| Melting_Harps wrote:
| > How anyone could look at this man's behavior over the last
| few weeks and not think he was on a fast track to a federal
| penitentiary is beyond me.
|
| That was obvious, but some of us who have seen some version of
| this before have been saying he was going to end up in prison
| when he entered US political donating/purchasing influence
| since the beginning of 2022; it was clear where this was all
| going and the hope was that it would take down all the alt
| scams, but somehow despite not having any BTC it has taken down
| the entire cryptocurrency market for no discernible reason.
|
| Its the epitome of contagion effect in practice; and while
| hindsight is 20/20 I fear that the greatest take away here will
| be missed because of the ire that has been fomented in the
| media: insiders will use anything to achieve their largess,
| that regulation is a loosely held panacea when said insiders
| use influence and resources to grift.
|
| I think he will get a light sentence, relative to the amount of
| money that has been lost, like Elizabeth Holmes as he scammed a
| lot of big players/rich people but it will not be the 2 life
| sentences that Ross Ulbricht, and that is the real point: we
| have a multi-tiered judicial system with a very clearly
| established selective application of the Law.
| freyr wrote:
| It's common knowledge to keep your mouth shut at this point.
| You don't need to have highly-regarded lawyers advising you to
| know this, but SBF had (at least) two: his parents, who were
| with him in the Bahamas.
|
| Even if he was under a delusion that the rules wouldn't apply
| to him, we can assume his parents would do everything in their
| power to reign him in if this was not some sort of strategy.
|
| From what I understand of the interviews, he carefully avoided
| going into details, and instead used the opportunity to present
| himself as an "aw, shucks" borderline simpleton with a heart of
| gold who just got in over his head. He was going to be arrested
| either way, so how do you see this as not a carefully-planned
| attempt to improve his public image?
| xnyan wrote:
| >You don't need to have highly-regarded lawyers advising you
| to know this, but SBF had (at least) two: his parents, who
| were with him in the Bahamas.
|
| My experience has been that working with family or very close
| friends often nullifies or severally weakens professional
| sensibilities. It would be very understandable and almost
| expected if his parents are too closely involved emotionally
| and financially to be objective in this situation, and even
| if they were, the parent-child relationship also affects how
| one takes advice.
|
| I would never rely on a close family member for important
| legal services, it seems almost as bad an idea as relying on
| yourself for legal services.
| drooopy wrote:
| No kidding. If my business had lost billions of dollars
| belonging to other people, I would only be talking to a small
| army of lawyers. This guy acted like he had a deathwish.
| [deleted]
| jwmoz wrote:
| SBF is quite obviously on the spectrum and I think that has a
| lot to do with his inability to use "No comment".
| Melting_Harps wrote:
| > SBF is quite obviously on the spectrum and I think that has
| a lot to do with his inability to use "No comment".
|
| He may be, but going for the Lauri Love defense as your 'hail
| mary' may have been his only move left; they'll likely claim
| that this will be clear indication of his mental state in
| order to to get a lighter sentence or end up in a white-
| collar prison rather than a stint in Chino.
| zombiwoof wrote:
| SBF is a self entitled, privileged prick. He has no concept of
| infallibility. He is smart and rich so he thinks he will be
| given a pass
| dang wrote:
| Ok, but can you please stop posting unsubstantive/flamey
| comments to HN? You've done that repeatedly, unfortunately.
|
| You may not owe ex-billionaire fraud defendants better, but
| you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
| If you wouldn't mind reviewing
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking
| the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be
| grateful.
| paulpauper wrote:
| I don't think it would have made much of a difference either
| way. The feds did their own investigation and would have
| arrived at the same conclusions anyway
| wslack wrote:
| Honestly though, I'm happy he talked more in this situation. We
| shouldn't decry people who acted horribly unethically digging
| their own legal grave.
| [deleted]
| Ozzie_osman wrote:
| But, he has a savior complex... And you should too!
| dilawar wrote:
| Today there was an article about his parents in nytimes. I
| think at at least one of them is professor of law. And both
| parents seems to be involved with his company. I wonder if he
| didnt get any advice from them about not talking?! Maybe he
| knew that he is done legally and there is no downside to
| talking to public.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| There's a pathology amongst wealthy people where they think
| that the law doesn't apply to them, period, and are simply
| shocked when it does.
|
| Some other recent examples of this include the lawyer Michael
| Avenatti going to jail for decades for stealing from his
| clients, and everything that has ever happened to Donald
| Trump.
|
| (In my experience as a white person it is mostly other white
| people who think this, but I don't want to generalize.)
| techdmn wrote:
| I would argue they have this belief because it is so often
| true. Exceptions are surprising to many people.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| It's true _to an extent_. It 's rarely true to the extent
| they imagine.
| MarcoZavala wrote:
| foobazgt wrote:
| > (In my experience as a white person it is mostly other
| white people who think this, but I don't want to
| generalize.)
|
| How to casually stereotype without stereotyping?
| [deleted]
| Spooky23 wrote:
| The guy is a thief who defrauded millions. His hubris is what
| got him in this situation.
| CodeIsMyFetish wrote:
| Both of his parents are in law too. Like, you'd think he'd know
| enough to not say anything.
| jayess wrote:
| It's often arrogance that leads to these things. I have a
| feeling he thought that the "aw shucks, I didn't know what was
| happening and I want to make things right" shtick would somehow
| work. He seems like a pretty dumb guy.
| [deleted]
| engineer_22 wrote:
| SBF's mother and father are both Standford law professors - so
| he knows all this.
|
| He has another angle. Maybe he was trying to taint the jury
| pool. He was up to something, but what?
| belter wrote:
| Parents also not out of the woods.
|
| "The FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried's mother and father, who
| teach at Stanford Law School, are under scrutiny for their
| connections to their son's crypto business." -
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/12/technology/sbf-parents-
| ft...
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| I'm beginning to suspect this story is deeper than it
| looks.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| Judge people by their observed behaviors, not what you assume
| they should know. Lots of people should be smart and should
| act more intelligently than they do.
| engineer_22 wrote:
| There are many accounts of SBF's capacity for subterfuge. I
| don't believe he was blabbing about what he did because
| he's stupid.
| hef19898 wrote:
| You can be a smart crook and still be stupid enough to do
| stupid things. Especially if you think you are smart
| enough to get away with it.
| NaturalPhallacy wrote:
| Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgWHrkDX35o
| Xeoncross wrote:
| I don't pity SBF, but this advice is important for innocent
| citizens. It's unfortunate that anything you say to law
| enforcement can be used against you - but none of it can be
| used for you. A police officer can testify against you, but if
| they try to support you it will be dismissed as "hearsay".
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| He didn't speak to the police though. Just to randos with
| podcasts in the crypto sphere
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > It's unfortunate that anything you say to law enforcement
| can be used against you - but none of it can be used for you.
|
| Is it really unfortunate? There is simply an implicit
| assumption that humans avoid incriminating themselves when
| possible but are very quick to offer excuses. That seems to
| align pretty well with my experience. Therefore, we assume
| that if someone says something contrary to their own interest
| is is more likely to be true.
| p0pcult wrote:
| >Is it really unfortunate?
|
| Yes; the system should not be biased towards guilt.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| This is arguably biased towards justice, not guilt.
| MacsHeadroom wrote:
| "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that
| one innocent suffer."[0]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio
| 2devnull wrote:
| There are times when it doesn't apply. But yes, for most
| people in most situations, as most of us know, you don't
| talk. It's called the fifth amendment. School children learn
| about it in civics class.
| thefaux wrote:
| Do we even have civics in most schools anymore?
| tptacek wrote:
| Yes.
| p0pcult wrote:
| Let me guess: you live in the suburbs, or your kids go to
| a private school, or you are relying on your past.
| tptacek wrote:
| I live in Illinois, where it's a statewide requirement
| for graduation.
| freejazz wrote:
| Because one is hearsay and one is a party admission. This is
| basic evidence law.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
|
| obligatory "don't talk to the police" link.
| thathndude wrote:
| Lawyer here. I give this guy's book out to anyone I care
| about. Friends, family. I even highlight the bit at the end
| with the practical advice. Everyone needs to know this.
|
| The friendliest police officer in the world is not your
| friend
| TrickyRick wrote:
| I'm impressed it took a whole 33 minutes for this to be
| linked!
| danso wrote:
| I'm surprised this classic video is 10+ years old but has
| only 18M views.
|
| edit: Saw that the professor, James Duane [0], has his
| own Wikipedia page, almost entirely on the popularity of
| the Youtube lecture. Even more surprising, his Talk page
| seems to be free of debate over Duane's notability.
| Pretty impressive for a single videoed lecture!
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Duane_(professor)
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Should be shown in elementary schools as part of the
| curriculum.
| p0pcult wrote:
| But then youd be disrupting the school-to-prison
| pipeline![1]
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-to-
| prison_pipeline
| smegger001 wrote:
| I was shown it in high-school by a particularly good
| social studies teacher.
| belter wrote:
| Yes but they always miss Part 2 :-)
|
| "Don't Talk to the Police Part 2" -
| https://youtu.be/tIt-l2YmH8M
| gamblor956 wrote:
| OTOH, as a former public defender I have no problems
| talking with the police.
|
| The police aren't your friend. They're also not your enemy.
|
| Talking to the police as part of an investigation doesn't
| make you a suspect. Seriously, how do people think criminal
| investigations are done? Talking to witnesses is a huge
| part of investigating. People very rarely finger themselves
| as potential suspects; it's almost always the _other_
| witnesses who identify them as suspects.
|
| If you're worried that you've done something wrong, talk to
| a lawyer first. 99.9% of the time, they'll tell you it's
| fine. Of course, if you tell the police you need to talk to
| your lawyer first, they'll want to know why you think you
| need a lawyer; if I were your lawyer, that's the first
| thing I'd wonder too. And if you weren't considered a
| potential suspect before you definitely will be on their
| short list after.
| rurp wrote:
| I can see why someone familiar with the law would be
| comfortable speaking with the police, but it's tough for
| a lay person to know if they are being lied to or will
| inadvertantly say something seemingly benign that causes
| them grief. Given that police are allowed to lie with
| impunity and _might_ become your enemy, it 's almost all
| downside for oneself to speak to them.
|
| If cops were obligated to be honest in more respects I
| would be more willing to open up, but of course they
| don't want any restrictions in that area. Cops in the US
| want to be able to lie whenever it's convenient and also
| have everyone trust them, but that's not a very fair
| bargain for the general public.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| If the police are asking you questions, they're not lying
| to you...they're just asking questions.
|
| And if the police say something seemingly benign that
| causes you grief, you can look forward to a large-ish
| settlement to make up for your troubles.
|
| People on HN rarely interact with the police and it seems
| they have an unrealistic, media-driven perception of how
| cops actually act. For point of reference, it's the same
| as how non-techies assume that every tech employee can
| hack their way into a bank account or rig together a go-
| kart from spare parts.
| paulpauper wrote:
| It all depends. For a speeding ticket, giving your info to
| the police tends to make it easier, although you do not
| have to answer his questions.
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| The lawyer mentions this in his talk.
| andrewmutz wrote:
| If an officer testified in support of you about what he
| witnessed, why would that be hearsay?
| pliftkl wrote:
| If you tell a police officer that you did a crime, then
| your words are admissible as evidence against you. If you
| tell a police officer that you did not commit a crime, you
| can't have the police officer testify in your defense that
| you told him that you did not commit the crime.
|
| Witnessing things is a completely different matter.
| anotherman554 wrote:
| "If you tell a police officer that you did a crime, then
| your words are admissible as evidence against you."
|
| This is because the people who wrote the evidence rules
| believe nobody would admit to a crime unless they are
| guilty. So it's a hearsay exception.
|
| The exception isn't meant to be a sinister trick to treat
| you unfairly, it's meant to lead to the right people
| going to jail and the right people not going to jail.
| SilasX wrote:
| Ehhh that's still misleading. It makes it sound like when
| the officer testifies about your statements, it goes
| through a magical filter in which only the inculpatory(is
| that the word?) stuff can come in, but not the
| exculpatory. Like...
|
| During Mirandized interrogation:
|
| Doe: "I grabbed her wrists after she picked up a knife to
| attack me."
|
| In court:
|
| Prosecutor: "What, if anything, did you learn from
| questioning Mr. Doe?"
|
| Officer: "He said he grabbed her wrists."
|
| Defense attorney on cross-examination: "In what context
| did Mr. Doe grab her wrists?"
|
| Officer: "After she picked up a kni--"
|
| Prosecutor: "Objection! Hearsay!"
|
| Judge: "Sustained. Jury will disregard anything about the
| accuser picking up a knife. Wrist grabbing stuff is
| fine."
|
| ^Not remotely how it works, at all, but what you might
| falsely believe from being told "your words are
| admissible against you, not for you".
| jayess wrote:
| Because hearsay is an out-of-court statement, but there are
| exceptions, including a statement against the person's
| interest. FRE 804(b)(3).*
|
| In other words, if you try to introduce an out-of-court
| statement that _supports_ your case, it 's hearsay; if the
| statement is against your interest, it's allowable.
|
| Of course there are other exceptions and nuances, but this
| is the jist of it.
|
| * https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-804/
| SilasX wrote:
| But it's not like that acts as a filter against anything
| in your interest, since it would still come out on cross,
| right? I tried to illustrate with my comment here:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33973220
| rootusrootus wrote:
| At first, that sounds weird. Then I read the link you've
| provided. Now I understand how it makes perfect sense.
| Thanks for the explainer.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| IANAL.
|
| But it's unlikely the Police officer actually _"
| witnessed"_ anything that'll help you.
|
| If you tell police officer you did something bad, it's
| essentially a confession and reported as such.
|
| If you tell police officer you did something good, it's
| hearsay - you told it to officer who told it to judge &
| jury.
|
| Then there's jurisdictional details as to their role and
| rules of evidence etc that will vary from country to
| country.
|
| But it's a shocking revelation to most people that Police
| cannot effectively help you in court. That's not their
| role.
|
| -----------------------
|
| Edit: Found it - federal rule of evidence 801(d)(2)(a) -
| Opposing Party Statement
|
| https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/federal_rules_
| o...
| bushbaba wrote:
| Also if a cop lies hard to say who is right. But if you
| never talked to a cop unless your lawyer was present with
| recording equipment, etc. well, that's a much more solid
| defense.
| singleshot_ wrote:
| There are plenty of exceptions to the hearsay rule,
| though; there are also times when something that seems
| like it's hearsay isn't. Exception: maybe you made the
| statement to the cop while you were covered in blood and
| blubbering about something you had witnessed, making it
| an excited utterance. Or maybe your lawyer is eliciting
| the statement from the cop not to suggest to the jury
| that it's true, but to show you had no motive, making it
| fall outside of the hearsay rule.
|
| Police have a responsibility to testify truthfully under
| oath, within the constraints of the rules on hearsay. But
| that doesn't mean they are forbidden from saying anything
| in your favor, no matter what.
| freejazz wrote:
| It's hearsay 101 - an out of court statement by someone who
| didn't say it, being offered for the truth of the
| statement. it's not hearsay when you say it to the officer
| because that is a party admission.
| citizenpaul wrote:
| I really don't get this either. The guy has got to have a whole
| legion of lawyers. How are they allowing him to still speak
| publicly? I'm not even important and I've been consoled by
| company lawyers to not talk about stuff just "just in case".
| Yet this guy is is involved in one of the most high profile
| cases of all time screaming from the mountaintops about it.
|
| This whole FTX thing is very suspicious on all kinds of levels
| internally and externally. So many things about FTX don't make
| sense as presented.
| xena wrote:
| He ignores the lawyers.
| mindslight wrote:
| The strategy of ignoring advice from attorneys has "worked"
| for Trump and Musk. Welcome to the age of solipsistic anti-
| expertise, where _cult_ ivating your personal brand matters
| above all else. It seems like an inevitable condition of
| deep set post-reality. The interesting question is what
| develops next.
| datavirtue wrote:
| Fascism. Large flowery fascism.
| [deleted]
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _How anyone could look at this man 's behavior over the last
| few weeks and not think he was on a fast track to a federal
| penitentiary is beyond me_
|
| Seeing how thoroughly he convinced people that he had political
| influence, and given his general lack of awareness, I'm willing
| to give merit to his believing he was immune. Similar to how
| people outside securities think insider trading is more rampant
| than it is, insider trade in the most obnoxiously obvious way,
| and then promptly get caught.
| SilasX wrote:
| Yeah, and he was also in a state where the same strategy kept
| working again and again, so he may have been convinced it's a
| fundamental aspect of reality.
|
| Any time SBF ran into trouble, he could just raise another
| round of financing, or borrow against artificial valuations,
| or "smooth things over" with the right people.
|
| Once that happens enough, I imagine a lot of people would
| start to feel some cosmic _entitlement_ to it, like that 's
| just how it is, the FTT tokens _must_ be worth $24 each, it
| 's only a matter of "getting liquidity"[1], you can always
| raise more money, you can always call in a favor, you can
| always borrow against what you think the assets are worth,
| there's no reason to hold customer assets in their original
| form.
|
| Heck, even to the very last days, when his attorneys and CFO
| were telling him he _had_ to declare bankruptcy, he adamantly
| insisted that new funding was _just about_ to come through --
| and even that he got the offer moments after declaring --
| but, of course, he can 't say who, or under what terms, even
| _why_ they would invest. [2]
|
| Personally, I always try to maintain a frame of "these good
| times don't have to last, they can go away at any moment, so
| make sure you're ready for if/when that happens". But maybe
| I'd falter too, in the same position.
|
| [1] A frame even _informed_ observers buy into! Earlier
| comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33539326
|
| [2] ctrl-f for "Mr. Bankman-Fried was also frustrated.":
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/technology/sam-bankman-
| fr...
| PhasmaFelis wrote:
| Reminds me of someone or other who committed voting fraud, to
| prove that it's easy to get away with committing voting
| fraud, and immediately got caught.
| bredren wrote:
| Do we have some examples of people who have amassed great
| real or perceived fortunes (and power) that have not become
| drunk on it?
|
| Musk on stage with Chapelle last night, Elizabeth Holmes, or
| SBF's whole schtick, who are the ones who have kept their
| feet on the ground?
|
| What are the attributes of these others who don't lose
| themselves in fawning attention and (sometimes short-lived)
| mountains of capital?
| mlindner wrote:
| Elon on a comedian's show is not not having your feet on
| the ground...
|
| You realize that he's not asking to go on the show, people
| are asking him to come on the show. Your questions should
| be directed at Dave Chappele.
| yibg wrote:
| Probably the hundreds of billionaires you've never heard
| of.
| PraetorianGourd wrote:
| While not popular here, I would say Bezos has done a
| relatively good job of keeping his head amongst madness.
| astrange wrote:
| The popular wisdom is Amazon got into the video business
| entirely so Bezos could get dates with more actresses.
| wintogreen74 wrote:
| It IS pretty damning that Bezos (and Gates IMO) are the
| ones held up as "not letting the wealth and power change
| you". Bezos literally flew in a giant cock-rocket wearing
| a cowboy hat.
| PraetorianGourd wrote:
| Sure that is great comedy fodder, but it isn't really at
| the same level of the others.
| IncRnd wrote:
| There are so many people who have obtained fortunes and not
| become drunk on that.
|
| The person who built a liquor store and grew into 20 stores
| across the city. People who started consulting companies.
| That immigrant family who scraped and scraped for decades
| while living above their restaurant. The list is endless,
| especially compared to the much shorter list of crypto
| criminals who are drunk on their illusory power and fame,
| which seems to always disappear overnight.
|
| Any fool can make a fortune; it takes a person of brains to
| hold onto it.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| Liquor stores and consulting companies don't stack up to
| the " great fortunes" gp was asking about.
| alexcabrera305 wrote:
| That imaginary liquor store owner, even as an imaginary
| person, has more of a fortune than SBF at this point.
| IncRnd wrote:
| Except "great fortunes" isn't what gp wrote. GP wrote,
| "great real or perceived fortunes". Besides, how do you
| know what fortunes people have made with their liquor
| stores or consulting companies?
|
| Ross Perot was a billionaire from consulting, before
| being a billionaire was a thing. Plus he was a genuinely
| good person.
| [deleted]
| mrandish wrote:
| > There are so many people who have obtained fortunes and
| not become drunk on that.
|
| Both my perception and my experience from knowing several
| extremely wealthy 'self-made' people is that the vast
| majority are fairly quiet, prudent, bright and hard-
| working people who've managed to make (mostly) good long-
| term decisions and continue doing so consistently over
| time. I suspect the "crazy, playboy billionaire"
| stereotype is based more on high-visibility outliers
| rather than the majority. Outlandish, eccentric and/or
| entitled behavior makes for good stories and click fodder
| while typical long-term value-building behaviors are
| pretty boring.
| whateveracct wrote:
| Money really is wasted on some people
| ksaxena wrote:
| See some videos on YouTube of Warren Buffet and Charlie
| Munger conducting Berkshire's annual shareholder meetings.
| It will help.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Quick link to 2022:
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E_seuUbfUGw
|
| Although I get the impression a large part of Buffet's
| normalcy is because he's chosen to spend his time making
| money for other people.
|
| If you're ridiculously rich... you could do worse than
| thinking of common people as your boss, for perspective.
| llimos wrote:
| Warren Buffett might be one example
| irrational wrote:
| Some possibilities are Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos and Bill
| Gates ex-wives (though, maybe they don't count as amasssing
| their fortunes), um...
| idontpost wrote:
| Rockefeller avoided the press entirely (to his detriment
| really) until well after he'd retired.
| parenthesis wrote:
| Jeff Bezos: Hey MacKenzie, let's quit our great jobs at
| DE Shaw, move across the country to Seattle, and start an
| online bookstore! [In 1994!]
|
| By saying yes, she was, in effect, Amazon's first
| investor, and worked there in the early days. The value
| of positive support from family cannot be underestimated
| (see also Jeff Bezos' parents' early investment in the
| company).
| misnome wrote:
| I can well imagine there being a selection bias towards the
| ones who want to build a cult of personality being the only
| ones that "make news".
| boringg wrote:
| I would argue most do especially those who accrue it over
| time. Most power isn't in the broad open nor does attract
| attention necessarily (unless thats where it draws its
| source of power). It's those who attain it (power/money) in
| very short order that have significant difficulty adjusting
| to their change in circumstances.
|
| You are only pointing to the very few who couldn't handle
| it or are drawn to attention.
| eddsh1994 wrote:
| Warren Buffet? Maybe Bill Gates? Queen Elizabeth II?
| spookthesunset wrote:
| Gates seems to be caught up in Epstein stuff. Maybe. So
| I'm not sure where he stands. He does know when to shut
| his pie hole though.
| datavirtue wrote:
| It runs in his family.
| autotune wrote:
| The only thing he has done that I am aware of is become
| Farmer Gates in the retirement years.
| etothepii wrote:
| I don't think QE2 amassed her wealth and power. She was,
| officially, given it by God.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| If the comparison point is SBF, then pg exceeds this bar.
| He doesn't flaunt it, but it's there.
|
| Power is hard to measure, but in this context it seems
| reasonable to include lots of founders in the list. The
| Collison brothers, sama, and Brian Armstrong, to name a
| few. They're all in charge of fortunes that normal people
| can only dream of.
|
| I don't think any of them have made critical errors. And
| it's arguable whether Musk has, but time will tell.
| NaturalPhallacy wrote:
| Yes, you've likely never heard of them:
| https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/
|
| I have no clue who these people are:
|
| Hank & Doug Meijer
|
| Tom & Judy Love
|
| Stewart & Lynda Resnick
|
| Andrew & Peggy Cherng
|
| In fact the list of ones I recognize is tiny compared to
| the whole list.
|
| Some of them don't even have pictures, but they're all
| billionaires. And yes, I consider even a single billion to
| be a great, real fortune. Most people will never crack a
| million.
| comte7092 wrote:
| >Seeing how thoroughly he convinced people that he had
| political influence
|
| We've gotten tot he point where we've gone way too far off
| the deep end when it comes to this narrative around political
| influence. the collective imagination seems to have risen to
| comic book level proportions.
|
| All people saw was SBF gave a bunch of money and thought, "he
| must have a ton of influence". Meanwhile, in my state, he
| gave $11 million to a democratic candidate who lost in the
| primary and was transparently an absolute joke of a
| candidate.
| noelsusman wrote:
| His donations to Democrats accounted for 0.025% of all the
| money Democrats spent on the midterm election last month.
| Anyone who genuinely believed that can buy you a get out of
| jail free card for billions of dollars in fraud should
| seriously re-evaluate how they think the world works.
| lisper wrote:
| You're not wrong, but on the other hand... the limit on
| direct contributions to federal campaigns is $5800. I can
| tell you from personal experience that this is enough to
| get a meeting with any senator or congressman except the
| most senior leadership (their price is about 10x more).
| So for about $3-4M/yr you can have every incumbent
| senator and representative on speed dial. They won't
| necessarily do your bidding, but they will return your
| calls.
| wmorein wrote:
| Is this really true? How does it actually work? You
| donate $5800 then give them a call and ask for a meeting?
| I assumed that would take a lot more.
| lisper wrote:
| If you give them $5800 they will start calling you to ask
| for more money. If it's a Congressman they will usually
| call you themselves. If it's a Senator they might call
| you personally, or they might have their campaign manager
| call. But from there it's pretty easy to get a meeting if
| you want one.
|
| You don't even have to give $5800 in most cases. $1k is
| plenty to get the attention of junior congressmen and
| even some less well known senators.
|
| Just to put all this in perspective, it's actually
| possible to get meetings with these people without giving
| them money, especially if you're a constituent. But the
| more money you give, the higher you move up in the
| priority queue, and it doesn't take much to move to the
| front of the line.
| JoblessWonder wrote:
| Just seconding everything you are saying. We dabbled in
| political contributions at my workplace for a project and
| it was easy to get a meeting with just about anyone
| (except our Senators who we didn't need to try) as long
| as we were flexible with scheduling.
| comte7092 wrote:
| It's also important to note that a part of a politicians
| job is to meet with constituents, so getting a meeting is
| not _per se_ nefarious. The issue is about how much
| _more_ access you get if you are a big donor.
| datavirtue wrote:
| They will contact you.
| potatototoo99 wrote:
| He donated almost 1bn - that is known of. The Democrats
| spent about 5bn in the whole election. Do you have a
| source for your numbers?
| BryantD wrote:
| I think that given SBF's assertion that he donated an
| equal amount of dark money to Republicans, it would be
| wise to mention the amount of money they spent as well.
| Otherwise you risk giving the impression that this
| problem is limited to a single party.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/30/ftx-
| billi...
|
| I also think the 1 billion figure is inaccurate. In May,
| SBF said that he _could_ spend a billion between now and
| 2024. However, he backed away from that quote in October:
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/14/sam-bankman-fried-
| backtracks...
|
| Elon Musk later said that SBF "probably" donated over 1
| billion, without providing any supporting evidence. I
| can't prove that he's thinking of the May statement but
| it seems plausible if not certain. Either way, Elon
| Musk's guesses are not proof of anything.
|
| I'm glad you asked for sources. It's always important to
| provide them.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| Are you counting PACs?
| comte7092 wrote:
| What's your source for the $1bn?
|
| Axios wrote that he spent $37 million on the midterms:
|
| https://www.axios.com/2022/11/15/ftz-crypto-bankman-
| fried-de...
| blueyes wrote:
| Can all the people who claimed SBF would never be
| arrested because of the corruption of media,
| establishment and Democrats please ask themselves how
| many other false things they believe because of their
| tribe's ideology?
| vkou wrote:
| No, because there's always another theory that you can
| jump to when your prior assumptions fail you.
|
| Here's an easy one: "He was only arrested because he was
| going to reveal damning truth in today's Congressional
| hearing."
|
| Even if the DOJ, Congress, and SBF all swear until they
| are black and blue that it wasn't the reason for the
| timing of the arrest, the theory can change to "Of course
| they would say that, they are all in on the deep state
| conspiracy."
|
| The beautiful thing about the world is that there is an
| unlimited number of unconfirmable and unrefutable
| possibilities and could-have-beens that can be used to
| support any idea - sensible, or silly.
| boeingUH60 wrote:
| I almost called BS on your statistic, but a simple Google
| search shows that this year's midterm elections saw
| spending of up to $16.7 billion [1], so it appears to be
| true. As a non-US citizen, the amount of money in US
| politics shreds my mind...what are they even spending it
| on? Ads? Campaign outreaches? How much do these things
| cost?
|
| If it's how it is in my weird African country (Nigeria),
| I'll wager that most of the money is spent on
| advertisements and clueless campaign managers and staff
| enjoying the grift. But then, I understand; the U.S. is a
| really rich country with a high percentage of
| politically-active citizens, so they put their money
| where their mouth is.
|
| 1- https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/03/2022-midterm-election-
| spendi...
| comte7092 wrote:
| It's important to keep in mind how much more expensive it
| is to buy ads in major US media markets. It's not
| difficult to spend tens of millions of dollars just
| buying television ads for a few weeks during campaign
| season.
| akira2501 wrote:
| Single ads are actually pretty cheap. Full campaigns that
| are designed to reduce or eliminate opportunities for
| your competitors to also advertise on the same station
| are expensive.
| bragr wrote:
| Mostly ads, there's a lot of staff too, but the typical
| campaign salary is pretty paltry and reporting laws limit
| opportunities for grift.
| datavirtue wrote:
| Consumerism. If you don't roll out a full blown corporate
| propaganda machine you aren't going anywhere.
| jiscariot wrote:
| He was the #2 donor behind Soros to Democratic candidates.
| It's not every day that the number two gets indicted for a
| multi-billion dollar fraud. It is good to see questions
| around influence arise.
| BryantD wrote:
| This is accurate for non-dark money.
|
| Interestingly, if we take SBF at his word that he donated
| equally to Republicans in dark money, he would be the
| fifth largest donor to Republican candidates.
|
| https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/3720141-here-are-
| the...
| gweinberg wrote:
| Why on earth would you believe anything he says without
| evidence?
| comte7092 wrote:
| Questions around influence are good, but what I'm
| referring to is different.
|
| There were numerous posts on this forum who were adamant
| that nothing would happen to SBF because they were
| certain that he had the Democratic Party bought and paid
| for. It's the certainty that I'm calling out here ("comic
| book level), not the skepticism.
| pcwalton wrote:
| > It is good to see questions around influence arise.
|
| If he hadn't gotten indicted in, like, a couple of years,
| then sure. But people were _assuming_ he wouldn 't be
| indicted days after FTX collapsed.
| pcwalton wrote:
| > We've gotten tot he point where we've gone way too far
| off the deep end when it comes to this narrative around
| political influence. the collective imagination seems to
| have risen to comic book level proportions.
|
| Seriously. If I had a nickel for every time someone had
| posted on HN "SBF is immune because he donated a lot of
| money to Democrats" I'd have... well, a lot of nickels.
|
| Madoff donated a lot of money to Democrats too and it
| didn't help him one bit.
| 2devnull wrote:
| I think this is a bit far fetched. He was the scion of famous
| law professors. He grew up around the law. To think he didn't
| understand what the general public does about the law takes a
| special kind of ... assumption that directly contradicts the
| obvious facts. He very likely knows more about the law than
| anyone on here. How could he not?
| tptacek wrote:
| Has anybody seen any evidence whatsoever from SBF in any of
| his dealings at FTX or any of his dealings in the downfall
| of FTX that evinces any sort of legal savvy whatsoever? My
| parents are musicians. I'm not.
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| My father sold cars most of his adult life, and certainly
| throughout all the time we shared together until his death.
| He was very good at it. And yet I know fuck all about
| selling cars or cars in general. Nada. Nothing. I didn't
| even learn to drive until I was in my thirties. "X's
| parents are in profession Y" hardly means anything.
| xivzgrev wrote:
| Not even "here's how to negotiate and get a good deal on
| a used car"? Sorry to hear, that's the kind of stuff a
| parent should pass on if they know.
| IncRnd wrote:
| > He very likely knows more about the law than anyone on
| here. How could he not?
|
| The answer is simple, through a lack of knowledge.
| Knowledge of the law is not genetically inherited.
| LiquidSky wrote:
| Your theory of the genetic transmission of legal knowledge
| is an interesting one. We await your research for further
| study.
| xivzgrev wrote:
| I don't think the poster is proposing genetic
| transmission. Rather it's fairly common for parents to
| share "insider knowledge" they have with their kids to
| help them be successful. But this does not always happen.
| salawat wrote:
| Mind the old aphorism: >The Cobblers kids have no shoes.
|
| Not everyone brings work home with them, or forces their
| kids down that path.
| singleshot_ wrote:
| > How could he not?
|
| Well, he's not a lawyer, for one...
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > He very likely knows more about the law than anyone on
| here. How could he not?
|
| There are actual lawyers on HN. I don't think proximity to
| lawyers makes one as knowledgeable as an actual one.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| Lawyer up and shut up is the most basic advice. Ever.
| datavirtue wrote:
| I know a dev who is married to a lawyer. He knows enough
| not to offer an opinion.
| [deleted]
| estebank wrote:
| My father is a civil engineer. That doesn't qualify me to
| build a bridge.
| xivzgrev wrote:
| Sure. But you probably know a few basics about bridges.
| That's the overarching point - a basic lawyer thing is if
| you are ever in trouble, don't talk to anyone: cops,
| media, etc. so it's curious why he decided to anyway.
| estebank wrote:
| TBH, a little knowledge is worse than no knowledge. Fewer
| chances to overestimate your own understanding in the
| later case.
| xdavidliu wrote:
| I think you meant to say "That's the overarching pont".
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| The easy answer is that he was zooted to the gills on
| ADHD meds. There might be others too.
| akgerber wrote:
| The work of a famous law professor is very different from
| the work of a defense lawyer, and generally involves very
| little interaction with the business end of the justice
| system.
| anotherman554 wrote:
| If he's committed crimes, he almost certainly doesn't
| listen to his parents, since lawyers by training are risk
| adverse, and tend to tell you not to do things that can
| land you in jail.
|
| So if you believe he's committed crimes, then it doesn't
| become far fetched to imagine that he'd continue to not
| listen to his parents on matters of criminal defense.
| kcplate wrote:
| > He very likely knows more about the law than anyone on
| here. How could he not?
|
| Lawyers and judges break the law, sometimes intentionally
| out of arrogance derived from how adeptly they believe they
| can skirt it because of their knowledge and position.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| Oh, I believe he believed it. I just can't imagine an
| impartial observer from outside his lil universe believing
| it.
| isx726552 wrote:
| Probably also shouldn't go back and delete semi-incriminating
| tweets[0] and try to avoid bot detection by tweeting one letter
| at a time[1] to keep the overall count the same
| (supposedly)[2].
|
| [0] https://protos.com/sam-bankman-fried-caught-deleting-more-
| tw...
|
| [1] https://fortune.com/crypto/2022/11/14/sam-bankman-fried-
| cryp...
|
| [2]
| https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ywz4j8/sam_...
| pacetherace wrote:
| Tldr: Being stupid and naive is not a good legal defense
| hef19898 wrote:
| Not a lawyer neither, but in the leaked testemony of his to
| congress, he states multiple times that he didn't want to file
| for Chaoter 11 and even ordered people not to. Sounds a little
| bit incriminating, postponing Chapter 11, insolvency
| proceedings and all that.
|
| Seems he really cannot shut up...
| nroets wrote:
| Or he didn't want to file for Chapter 11 because he is
| obsessed with being in the limelight. That would also explain
| why he can't shut up.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Either way, this whole story deserves a book, a film and a
| ton of popcorn.
| polishdude20 wrote:
| Where do people who do these kind of crimes go when they're
| sent to jail? Like.. is there a jail for financial criminals? A
| place where you're not sharing a bunk with a serial killer but
| just a billion dollar fraudster?
|
| Or are they usually put into the same place?
| revicon wrote:
| Minimum security prison, at least in the United States.
|
| https://blog.globaltel.com/white-collar-prison/
| revscat wrote:
| Donald Trump did exactly the opposite of your advice at every
| turn, yet remains free and unindicted. SBF's main mistake seems
| to have been not cultivating political clout before committing
| fraud, not anything related to what he said or did.
| astrange wrote:
| Trump's corporations are indicted and he's banned from
| running charities in New York. He was also impeached twice,
| which is the same thing as being indicted (and convicted
| too).
| jcranmer wrote:
| > He was also impeached twice, which is the same thing as
| being indicted (and convicted too).
|
| The Senate trial is the equivalent of conviction; the House
| impeachment trial is more the equivalent of a grand jury
| indictment (although a very politicized one). No US
| President has ever been convicted in the Senate trial,
| Trump included.
| whateveracct wrote:
| Trump was president. Not saying the POTUS is above the law,
| but it's a much more complicated & explosive situation for
| law enforcement. And his political clout & influence he used
| to commit said crimes in broad daylight is way more than some
| political donations.
| [deleted]
| belter wrote:
| Last interview. Some pressure applied here...
| https://unusualwhales.com/sbf-interview
| pseingatl wrote:
| In this last interview, he talks about how several customers
| had negative balances on the platform due to margin trading.
| According to the SEC's civil suit, the only customer that had
| a negative balance was Alameda.
| jwmoz wrote:
| They blatantly were doing all sorts of illegal stuff with
| Alameda-they had god-mode (no liqs) and probably could see
| and snipe other peoples stops.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| I beg to differ. By all means, keep talking!
|
| I just don't follow my own advice I give to criminals like SBF.
| dokein wrote:
| I generally agree with you, but if I had to steelman SBF's
| actions:
|
| 1. Prosecutors don't operate independently of the court of
| public opinion. They can throw the book at you (e.g. the George
| Floyd officers) or let you off easy (e.g. other officers who
| historically did similar things but did not face the same
| charges).
|
| 2. The current perception is that he committed fraud (like
| Madoff), and if convicted for that would likely go to prison
| for the rest of his life.
|
| 3. He's clearly not _innocent_ of wrongdoing, and there 's too
| many people involved who are cooperating with authorities, so
| just being quiet doesn't help him as much (in contrast to being
| found at a crime scene with no witnesses).
|
| 4. If he can get a conviction only of criminal negligence then
| perhaps he can get out of prison faster.
|
| 5. Thus perhaps if he can loudly admit to being a bumbling
| idiot and super negligent, it might sway the public opinion to
| criminal negligence instead of outright fraud.
| danso wrote:
| FWIW it's possible that SBF's post-FTX-bankruptcy actions and
| words created such a spectacle that federal regulators and
| investigators were spurred to hit him hard and fast. But all
| the key evidence cited* comes from what he either tweeted
| before the collapse, or presented in private to investors.
|
| By comparison, Do Kwon has been relatively quiet but that
| didn't stop him from South Korea putting out an arrest warrant
| on him in September. But it seems he's still "free" b/c he
| spent his time hiding his whereabouts.
|
| * (at least in the SEC civil lawsuit)
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| People keep saying this, but honestly, does anyone really think
| it makes one iota of difference?
|
| Fact is that there is a _huge_ paper trail of SBF 's
| malfeasance, nevermind the fact that his co-conspirators appear
| to be turning against him. If anything, his interviews seemed
| to be his attempt to argue for negligence over malice in his
| case.
|
| Yes, SBF is going to prison for a long time. No, I don't think
| anyone has made a viable argument that his interviews over the
| past few weeks are likely to make his sentence worse.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Hard to say how much difference it would make but why would
| you give your opponent a freebie?
| abakker wrote:
| It does. His tweets were in the SEC's complaints this
| morning. Tweets AFTER the collapse.
| cjensen wrote:
| Yes it has made a difference. In white-collar crimes,
| prosecutors have to prove intent. That means they have to
| somehow find evidence that the defendant meant to do various
| things improperly. SBF has literally given interviews where
| he has stated the required intent for some of the crimes.
|
| As an unrelated aside, note that this is also a way of
| punishing lower classes of people more severely. If you
| shoplift, prosecutors don't have to prove you meant to do
| that rather than just accidentally failing to pay. Generally
| laws for intent are for people that legislators can identify
| with, and there is no intent requirement for people
| legislators don't personally identify with.
| TearsInTheRain wrote:
| intent matter for a lot of crimes across the board
| tyingq wrote:
| I think it does make a difference. It's effectively taunting
| the prosecutors, who will find ways to retaliate. So prison
| time either way, but likely more than if he had shut up.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Yes - he easily could've spent a decade out of jail -
| possibly with quite a lavish life - and ended up serving much
| less jail time.
|
| So - on basically every account - he would've been _far, far_
| better off to STFU.
| himinlomax wrote:
| Point is, there might be enough dirt to convict him without
| him talking, but there can't be any less with him talking.
| fmajid wrote:
| White-collar crime prosecutions are notoriously time-consuming
| to prepare, by those standards this was remarkably swift.
| whatashammy wrote:
| obruchez wrote:
| Vegaphobia or not, I fail to see any link here.
| jeffbee wrote:
| The opening phrase is killing me. What can "From at least in or
| about 2019" mean? Does it mean not before 2019? Does it mean 2019
| at the latest?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| IANAL, but I did serve on a criminal jury once. Not that it
| means much. When we got instructions for how to render a
| verdict, every charge was explained in plain English, maybe one
| or two sentences, and definitely included the date. It seems to
| be a technicality that matters, and someone could walk if the
| date is wrong.
| outside1234 wrote:
| It means that they have identified acts back to 2019 but are
| not foreclosing on finding more acts earlier.
| hammock wrote:
| That's what "at least" means.
|
| The "in or about" is separate, and means they found things
| that may have been in 2019 but are not foreclosing that those
| particular things may have occurred at a different time
| mh- wrote:
| oops, I didn't see your reply when I posted mine. yours is
| a clearer explanation.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Things that happened earlier than 2019 have dates less than
| 2019, no?
| outside1234 wrote:
| The law is definitely not a formal grammar like we have in
| computer languages, yes. :)
| mh- wrote:
| _(not a lawyer)_
|
| there are two separate things here.
|
| "on or about" (s/on/in, in this case) is an expression[0]
| that indicates an approximation. hedging in case it
| actually happened in, say, 2018 or 2020.
|
| the "at least" is what you'd think, of course. combining
| the two in this way feels awkward, but it's common usage
| [1].
|
| [0] https://www.nolo.com/dictionary/on-or-about-term.html
|
| [1]
| https://www.google.com/search?q=%22at+least+on+or+about%22
| function_seven wrote:
| That kind of phrasing is boilerplate for indictments. It's used
| even in the most nailed-down circumstances. Here's a bit from
| Zacarias Moussaoui's indictment for 9/11 [0]:
|
| > _On or about September 11, 2001, Saeed al-Ghamdi, Ahmed al-
| Nami, Ahmed al-Haznawi, and Ziad Jarrah hijacked United
| Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757, which had departed from
| Newark, New Jersey bound for San Francisco at approximately
| 8:00 a.m. After resistance by the passengers, Flight 93 crashed
| in Somerset County, Pennsylvania at approximately 10:10 a.m.,
| killing all on board._
|
| I mean, if they're being careful about the date of _that_ ,
| they'll do it for all dates. (Curiously, though, the very next
| paragraph in that indictment doesn't use the "on or about"
| qualifier.)
|
| [0] https://www.justice.gov/archives/ag/indictment-zacarias-
| mous...
| AndrewStephens wrote:
| It prevents the defense from using the precise language as a
| technicality.
|
| "You honor, my client is accused of crimes starting in 2019,
| but we intend to show that the fraud started in 2013. That is
| completely different crime which this case does not address.
| Motion to dismiss"
|
| That probably wouldn't work, but why take the risk?
| kipchak wrote:
| At minimum roughly in 2019, but possibly earlier?
| reisse wrote:
| I think it means "we have evidences about his crimes in 2019,
| but we suspect he also commited some crimes earlier, and if
| we'd find additional information in due course, we reserve the
| right to add it to the charges" in legalspeak.
| jpmattia wrote:
| > "did transmit and cause to be transmitted by wire, radio, and
| television communication"
|
| Note to self: Remember to use only free-space lightwave
| communications to avoid committing wire fraud.
|
| Edit: Removed "fiber" because it looks too much like a wire and
| avoid being busted by outside1234!
| Kab1r wrote:
| Aren't light waves and radio waves the same phenomenon at
| different wavelengths?
| officialjunk wrote:
| radio is a narrow range of frequencies of light; a subset of
| light. there's a technicality in there that could still work.
| jpmattia wrote:
| Of course, but the fact that they redundantly spell out
| "radio" and "television" (as though they aren't the same)
| makes me think we have a good chance of convincing a jury
| that "light" is something completely different.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| And the prosecution will spend an entire day trotting out
| some physicist in front of the jury saying why light and
| radio are the same thing. I'd love to hear the defense
| question the physicist about why they are wrong
| ALittleLight wrote:
| I think the defense would handle that pretty easily.
| Question the physicist until things are confusing, get
| him to repeatedly state that he is not an expert on the
| law or legal definitions (he is a physicist) and leave
| the jury thinking "Well, I didn't understand that guy,
| I'm sure it was some physics thing, but doesn't apply to
| the law."
| fein wrote:
| Carrier pigeons should still work.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Then you have to worry about falcons, or Blackadder. Smoke
| signs, maybe... but then you have to worry about the weather
| and wild fires... Seems they thought that one through!
| bigwavedave wrote:
| What about flag signaling? Asking for a friend.
| three_seagrass wrote:
| Ok as long as you don't use a halyard, since rope could
| be considered wire.
| Kubuxu wrote:
| Pigeons would probably fall under `mail fraud`.
| egberts1 wrote:
| If the laws of USPS made during 1800s pigeon mail carrier
| are still on the book, then yeah, mail fraud.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| _did transmit and cause to be transmitted_
|
| I often wonder why lawyers cling to this archaic form of
| verbiage, when they could just write 'transmitted, and had
| others others transmit [...]'.
| simplicio wrote:
| I assume if your trying to prove someone violated a law, it
| makes sense to use the exact phrasing in the law, rather then
| paraphrase and leave the defense some possible semantic
| wiggle room.
| politician wrote:
| "The device transmitted on its own, my client didn't cause
| the transmission."
| anigbrowl wrote:
| They could make that argument anyway. The semantic content
| is identical.
| stevenwoo wrote:
| The fact that they named the chat group channel for their
| executives (SBF, Caroline, others) "Wirefraud" is jawdropping.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Tell me they didn't...
| CSMastermind wrote:
| They did, Caroline also made a Tumblr post that said
| something like, "When I add being feminine to my dating
| profile should I put it before or after the section on wire
| fraud?"
| [deleted]
| outside1234 wrote:
| That's considered "a wire" by the law now :)
| jpmattia wrote:
| Curses! Foiled again!
|
| Does it help that I've now removed the fiber?
| salawat wrote:
| Odds are the legal system will converge on a non-technical,
| highly abstract meaning of "wire" to the effect of "any
| medium for conveyance of a signal over long distances
| (where long distances can reasonably be concluded to
| encompass multiple jurisdictions).
|
| This is why Legalese and English are truly seperate beasts
| linguistically.
| jpmattia wrote:
| Alas, it looks like I'll have to use my Maxwellian
| knowledge for good rather than evil after all.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| yabones wrote:
| RFC-1149 is the only safe way to commit fraud.
|
| https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1149
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Unless some stool pigeon testifies against you.
| lapetitejort wrote:
| That's when you call in some Goodfeathers [0] to make the
| problem go away
|
| [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZPwdGbxwNU
| [deleted]
| soyiuz wrote:
| I've seen a bunch of his interviews now and his message is pretty
| controlled, actually. It all boils down to: (a) I don't know,
| wasn't aware, and (b) I messed up / lost focus. These appearances
| seem to play a therapeutic (instead of legal or financial) role
| for SBF (bad idea, obviously). Yesterday (12/12) he was still
| talking about returning in a "senior executive role" to help in
| the bankruptcy. He is also convinced FTX USA and FTX Japan were
| fully solvent and that they still have a future. Fascinating.
| smolder wrote:
| Every indication is that he's lying through his teeth about
| being unaware.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| "If you attract customers and investors by saying that you have
| good risk management, and then you lose their money, and then
| you say 'oh sorry we had bad risk management,' that is not a
| defense against fraud charges! That is a confession!"
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-12-13/how-to...
| crmd wrote:
| Let's see if his 'I'm baby' defense works in court.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| You see your honor I simply didn't know I wasn't supposed to
| siphon customer funds from one of my businesses to another.
|
| Can I truly be charged for a crime if I pretend to be dumb
| after I get caught?
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| His stupidity defense claims that he thought it was a loan,
| and he didn't know what Alameda Research was doing with the
| loan.
| jasonhansel wrote:
| The SEC's complaint in its civil case provides more information
| about the details of the accusations against him:
| https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2022/comp-pr2022-2...
| greenyoda wrote:
| See also the HN discussion of the SEC charges:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33967386
| [deleted]
| VectorLock wrote:
| I'm curious what kind of plea deal Caroline Elison got.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| When she gets 18 months to his 20 years, I think the two of
| them will be used in Goofus & Gallant-style comics in law
| school to demonstrate the importance of _shutting up_ and
| letting your lawyer do the talking.
| makestuff wrote:
| I'm guessing a, you're still going to prison, but it will be
| for a few years instead of potentially your entire life.
| trillic wrote:
| Interesting wording. I am not a Lawyer but have had a lot of
| interest in this case and others like it.
|
| "SAMUEL BANKMAN-FRIED" a/k/a "SBF," the defendant, and others
| known and unknown did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree
| together and with each other to commit wire fraud".
|
| Does this indicate that they intend to charge more people in the
| organization under RICO laws? Or is that just standard legalese
| for any wire fraud case.
| advisedwang wrote:
| No.
|
| RICO is for charging the boss if you don't have direct evidence
| against them. In this case they do, so they don't need it.
|
| Also the phrasing here is just wire fraud (18 USC 1343) and
| conspiracy (18 ISC 371). If they were going towards RICO, you'd
| expect to see them talking about "patterns of activity",
| "operating a criminal enterprise" or other phrasing from RICO
| statues (18 USC 1962).
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Does this indicate that they intend to charge more people in
| the organization under RICO laws?
|
| No, there are no RICO charges here, and if SBF isn't getting
| RICO, I doubt underlings are.
|
| These are just regular conspiracy charges. It is possible
| sonenir all of the other alleged conspirators will be charged
| with conspitacy, though.
| danielfoster wrote:
| There may already be sealed charges against others but yes,
| there will likely be charges against others. Some conspirators
| may receive or may have already received immunity in exchange
| for testimony, though. It will take time to determine who else
| was involved and to what extent, though my guess is the focus
| will be on SBF.
|
| This is also great language for encouraging other conspirators
| to make a deal to testify even if the JD has little evidence
| against them. It's almost like the police lying and saying, "We
| have a video of you doing xyz."
| gizmo686 wrote:
| Count 1 is "conspiricy to commit wire fraud on customers".
|
| A nessasary component of that charge is the participation of
| others.
|
| In count two, "wire fraud on customers" there is no mention of
| consipiretors.
|
| I expect that we will see more charges, but this wording
| doesn't particularly indicated it.
| [deleted]
| ivraatiems wrote:
| IANAL either, however: RICO's pretty uncommon and it's probably
| not RICO. See for example [0]. But absolutely possible they
| charge many others.
|
| [0] https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-
| rico-...
| bragr wrote:
| Pretty standard legalese from where I'm sitting but I'd expect
| more people to be charged. He didn't do this all by himself.
| RICO wouldn't really apply here, they've already got the top
| guy, and usually RICO is about charging the top guy with the
| little guys' crimes.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| One thing to note about the charges: a number of these charges
| are "conspiracy" charges, meaning that there will be more people
| indicted. Most likely, his ex, who has probably already been
| talking to the feds in exchange for leniency, and possibly also
| including his one or both of his parents (see Count 7).
|
| Also interesting to note that Count 8 relates to campaign finance
| violations (for exceeding contribution thresholds and fraud
| related to making or reporting contributions). PACs don't have
| donation thresholds, so this appears to be related to the alleged
| "dark money" contributions he claimed to make in the summer
| (rather than the donations to the Democratic PACs in the
| primaries). It's not clear if this charge is based solely on his
| claims or if there is actual evidence of improper contributions.
| standardly wrote:
| [deleted]
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| One certainly hopes that the thousands of customers whose funds
| he stole will also see him face charges for what he did to them.
| frgtpsswrdlame wrote:
| So 4 counts on wire fraud and then also commodities fraud,
| securities fraud, money laundering and campaign finance laws. For
| the moment, if we set aside whether these will be proven, how bad
| does a stack of charges like this look for him if they _are_
| proven?
| DaftDank wrote:
| In legal parlance, he will be "fu*ed."
| makestuff wrote:
| From a quick google search (not promising this is 100%
| accurate, but I searched for sentencing minimums)
|
| 1) Wire fraud: 121-151 months
|
| 2) Securities fraud: 6-36 months base (there are multipliers
| apparently)
|
| 3) money laundering: 70 month average is all I could find
|
| 4) Campaign finance: seems to be more monetary based
|
| Not sure how a plea deal/severity of charges would change this
| though. Ex: when you are committing billions in fraud that
| probably has different guidelines than the average securities
| fraud of a few million or whatever.
| tptacek wrote:
| Fraud is a 2b1.1 crime, so the sentence scales with the
| "losses" to the victims; you can get +30 levels off that
| alone, which catapults the sentence into double digits.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| It strikes me as a weakness in our system that this is
| keyed to the $ amount. You can defraud a person of modest
| means of $50,000 and wipe them out financially; you could
| defraud some rich people of $2 billion without it impacting
| them in the slightest. This strongly incentivizes preying
| on the weak.
| tptacek wrote:
| I agree, it's a weakness (maybe not for the same reasons
| you give, but who cares).
|
| Anyways, my prediction is that if SBF is convicted, he is
| going away for all time.
| phone8675309 wrote:
| jbverschoor wrote:
| [deleted]
| thereddaikon wrote:
| Nothing. I'm surprised they actually stuck him with that one.
| theCrowing wrote:
| You can read up about precedents on Wikipedia or just Google
| it and make a more informed comment instead of trying to
| incite a flame war with a low effort attention seeking
| comment.
| thiscatis wrote:
| Nothing because the last one also didn't face issues. And the
| one before... You catch my drift.
| kemotep wrote:
| Are you implying if I buy ads to promote your candidacy using
| illegal funds that the election you won is illegitimate?
|
| How would we go about enforcing that?
| jbverschoor wrote:
| That's what banks do with normal people or small
| businesses. Source of capital, AML etc
| kemotep wrote:
| Do you have evidence of banks stealing money from
| depositors and not being prosecuted?
|
| We are in a comment section of an announcement of charges
| against a CEO of a "bank" that did such and will face a
| lifetime in prison if convicted. Every example of a bank
| stealing from depositors I can find has people facing
| consequences. I guess that we would not hear about
| instances of people getting away with their crimes but
| that would make it not wide spread and rare or your claim
| unprovable due to a lack of evidence.
| batmenace wrote:
| It's quite possible that as part of the bankruptcy
| proceedings, some/ all of the donations could be clawed back
| schnable wrote:
| Opponents of politicians who took the money opponents will
| use it against them in future elections. Maybe some will
| return the money to attempt to defect that attack.
| outside1234 wrote:
| The Republican donations might be worse - since he tried to
| do them illegally it sounds like - and someone might have
| knowingly accepted them.
|
| The solution is to have very low maximum donation to a
| campaign ($50?) and no corporate donations.
| masterof0 wrote:
| Knowing how connected the guy is, I'm guessing he'll only serve
| a few years at most. I sincerely hope I'm mistaken.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Connections purchased with money only last as long as the
| money does.
| likpok wrote:
| Being extraordinarily connected did not help Madoff much: he
| was sentenced to 150 years in prison and died there last
| year.
| Loughla wrote:
| The cynic in me says that it really does matter who you
| defraud. Where Madoff went wrong was ripping off other rich
| people. So, if SBF defrauded more upper- than middle- or
| working-class folks, then he's screwed.
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| This is silly. You think the career DOJ prosecutors are
| looking at the list of victims and only deciding to
| prosecute if there is a rich person on the list?
| whatshisface wrote:
| A lot of the things that defraud non-wealthy people
| (multi-level marketing, all of those "supplements" you
| can buy in the medicine isle, false advertising) aren't
| illegal or practical to sue over.
|
| Let's look at one particular example, the stop the steal
| scam. Thousands of people were tricked in to donating to
| the ringleaders of an impossible political cause based on
| false claims, and none of them are going to jail for that
| in particular. You could find dozens of similar examples
| just by keeping an eye on the news, but nobody thinks
| about it because a certain type of con with victims that
| professionals can't empathize with has become normalized.
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| Didn't Bannon et al. get indicted for a very similar
| scheme for some impossible border wall project? Seems
| like these things require patience
| NaturalPhallacy wrote:
| Or BLM leaders taking millions in donations and using it
| to buy houses.
| NaturalPhallacy wrote:
| Who went to jail for the ~2008 financial collapse?
| Basically nobody. And the banks are even bigger now.
|
| Edit, since I'm getting rate limited for disagreeing with
| the hive mind:
|
| "WSJ: Top 3 Banks Even Bigger Since 2008 Financial
| Crisis":
| https://www.newsmax.com/Finance/streettalk/banks-
| jpmorgan-ba...
|
| And I think Goldman Sachs betting against their own
| products constitutes a crime:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2IaJwkqgPk
| astrange wrote:
| They're not "even bigger", they're structured and
| regulated very differently now.
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| In the US, we can't just convict people because they lost
| people money. You need to prove criminal intent. Are you
| aware of any evidence demonstrating intent to commit
| fraud?
|
| Not sure what the size of banks has to do with anything.
| akoncius wrote:
| I dont have detailed knowledge, but rating agencies
| clearly violated their duties by providing AAA rating to
| junk
| coolspot wrote:
| Being extraordinarily connected did help Epstein though: he
| only spent one month in jail.
| rurp wrote:
| Only when the deal flew under the radar. The prosecutors
| even kept his victims in the dark in order to get away
| with such a soft deal.
|
| Once Epstein and his crimes were splashed all over the
| news he was looking at a much worse outcome.
| batmenace wrote:
| Eh, it feels like he may have donated a lot, but he wasn't
| crazy popular. Plus, not like he's had a long track record of
| donations over many years. I am not sure anyone with much
| influence will stick their neck out for someone like him
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I agree; politicians have a singular goal -- reelection.
| Supporting SBF at this point can only hurt. They will not
| be extending him any favors.
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| What do you expect politicians to do with respect to
| prosecution by the DOJ? Genuinely curious
| TrickyRick wrote:
| And also the money's gone (Probably). It's not like he has
| tonnes of money hidden away like other rich people on
| trial, so even if he gets bailed out by being buddies with
| the right people, it's not like he will make billions in
| campaign donations again any time soon.
| ladeagaytf wrote:
| likpok wrote:
| It depends on how much the court thinks he stole (of the
| billions). The US Sentencing Guidelines tops out at around $550
| million dollars, which adds 30 levels. Plus some adjustments: 2
| for using mass marketing or 4-6 for causing financial hardship
| (only one of these), 4 for being the leader of the
| organization.
|
| The base for larceny is 6.
|
| That gives 36 just based on the money, and up to 46. That's 15
| years on the low end, and runs off the end of the table
| ("life") on the high.
|
| In the federal system there is 15% time off for good behavior,
| so 15 years means 12.75 actually served.
|
| I'm assuming here the counts run concurrently or group (which I
| think is more typical than sequential, and also gives lower
| numbers). The judge can depart from the guidelines and give a
| lower sentence but SBF is not in a good place right now.
|
| https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2021-guidelines-manual-annot...
| pseingatl wrote:
| Can we discus recovery? The Madoff trustee was able to recover
| something like 90% of the Madoff Ponzi. Alameda and FTX's real
| estate purchases have value, as do their VC investments,
| purchases of bank stock, etc. In other words, it's not all gone.
| My understanding is that even some of the political contributions
| can be clawed back.
|
| FTX's purchases of IOU's (i.e., crypto) that declined in value
| are not likely to be recoverable. But Bitcoin still has
| substantial value. There's at least a billion in loans to
| insiders that can be clawed back.
|
| How much really was lost?
| chollida1 wrote:
| Well the Madoff trustee's were able to see who received payouts
| from Madoff due to KYC rules. This allowed the trustee to go to
| people, most of whom were completely innocent, to ask the to
| give back some of the money they redeemed from Madoff.
|
| FTX on the other hand has very few KYC docs so the trustees are
| left with wallet addresses.
|
| Not sure how you contact a wallet address to ask for money
| back.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| There was also a lot of paper wealth. You can get back your
| FTT tokens but they're completely worthless
| kragen wrote:
| madoff operated from 01960 to 02008
|
| kyc is from 02002
| LastTrain wrote:
| His Ponzi scheme started in 1991. Ponzi schemes are
| exponential, so more than 90% of the volume was after 2002.
| What's with the leading zeros?
| Yahivin wrote:
| Probably preparing for the year 9999 issue early.
| leprechaun1066 wrote:
| The guy in charge of this for FTX is the same guy in charge of
| handling getting money back from the Enron collapse. He's
| currently testifying to congress about the state of things. It
| doesn't look good.
| timcavel wrote:
| phphphphp wrote:
| I'd be absolutely shocked if more than 25% can be recovered.
| They spent multi-billions on venture investments that were not
| just high-risk due to their early stage nature but also
| inextricably linked to ftx by way of the cryptocurrency market
| as a whole and thus about as undiversified as humanly possible.
| There's a few of their investments that have value and value
| could be recovered through sales but almost all of them are
| illiquid and have seen valuations collapse.
|
| Also consider that a lot of the players involved are overseas
| and anonymous* which makes it much more difficult to clawback
| relative to people onshore (like in the case of madoff).
| [deleted]
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > FTX's purchases of IOU's (i.e., crypto)
|
| Crypto is mostly not IOUs since it doesn't tie to an obligation
| by anyone to do anything. (Explicitly redeemable tokens are
| IOUs, though.)
| [deleted]
| bmitc wrote:
| Is there a reason why they did this before and not after he
| appeared in the previously upcoming congressional hearing?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| A good question. Rep Ocasio-Cortez, questioning the current CEO
| of FTX in committee, seemed to suggest that there was more
| going on behind the scenes than was admitted to in the firm's
| legal filings of yesterday. I haven't been following the case
| closely so I'm not sure what her line of inquiry was aimed at.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-13 23:00 UTC)