[HN Gopher] Judge sends Sam Bankman-Fried to jail over witness t...
___________________________________________________________________
Judge sends Sam Bankman-Fried to jail over witness tampering
Author : coloneltcb
Score : 227 points
Date : 2023-08-11 19:28 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| Animats wrote:
| Courts seem to be getting somewhat tougher on white-collar crime.
|
| - This.
|
| - The Supreme Court just stopped the deal that would have let the
| Sackler family, the OxyContin pushers, off the hook personally.
|
| - Hunter Biden's no-jail plea deal was rejected, and he goes to
| trial.
|
| - Trump goes to trial, too.
| adrr wrote:
| Sacklers aren't even getting prosecuted even though their fraud
| is responsible for killing thousands of people. If we compare
| the amount of harm SBF did to society vs Sacklers, it isn't
| even on the same scale.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Why do you say they're not getting prosecuted. The decision
| yesterday restores their exposure to prosecution.
| flutas wrote:
| 2/4 of those aren't exactly as you're thinking of them.
|
| > The Supreme Court just stopped the deal that would have let
| the Sackler family, the OxyContin pushers, off the hook
| personally.
|
| Note, they didn't stop the deal. They temporarily paused it
| while they hear the case later this year. [0]
|
| > Hunter Biden's no-jail plea deal was rejected, and he goes to
| trial.
|
| Wasn't directly rejected, the judged asked questions which gave
| answers that hunters team felt they didn't agree to, including
| that he is still the subject of ongoing investigations. [1]
|
| > At one point, Noreika asked whether the investigation was
| ongoing, to which Weiss responded that it was but said he could
| not share any further details.
|
| > Noreika also raised a hypothetical, asking whether Biden
| could face charges of failing to register as a foreign agent
| and whether the agreement blocks his prosecution on such a
| charge. The defense said it believed the agreement would
| prohibit him from being charged, and the prosecution then
| disagreed.
|
| > Clark was overheard telling a prosecutor, "Then we'll rip it
| up," most likely in a reference to the plea deal, as they
| discussed the disagreement during a brief break before he
| eventually relented.
|
| [0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-purdue-pharma-
| set...
|
| [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-
| department/hunter-b...
| tylermenezes wrote:
| > - The Supreme Court just stopped the deal that would have let
| the Sackler family, the OxyContin pushers, off the hook
| personally.
|
| Paused, and is reviewing an appeal after a court approved the
| deal.
|
| > - Hunter Biden's no-jail plea deal was rejected, and he goes
| to trial.
|
| It wasn't really rejected, there was no deal at all. The two
| parties didn't have the same understanding of a key term of the
| deal, the judge pointed it out, and then the parties weren't
| able to agree on that term.
| silisili wrote:
| Happy to hear about the Sackler case, this is the first I've
| heard of that decision.
|
| Just finished a couple shows about it. I wonder how much of
| Dopesick and Painkiller are true. If even 1/4 of it is, the
| entire family should be in prison for the rest of their lives,
| and that's being lenient.
| asu_thomas wrote:
| > _this is the first I 've heard of that decision_
|
| That's because it's not true. The deal was not stopped. It
| was only delayed, but I wouldn't place blame on parent for
| getting this wrong; the media has done their best to imply
| otherwise.
| lusus_naturae wrote:
| If you're just speculating, it's useless. If you have info,
| then please share.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Pretty trivial web search:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/supreme-court-
| purdue-p...
| _delirium wrote:
| The order is here, issued yesterday (August 10): https://
| www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/081023zr1_98...
|
| The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and stayed the
| lower court order pending their own decision. What they
| agreed to hear: > The parties are
| directed to brief and argue the > following
| question: Whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a
| > court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization
| under > Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a
| release that extinguishes > claims held by
| nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, >
| without the claimants' consent.
|
| I think you can fairly describe this as the Supreme Court
| agreeing to _scrutinize_ the Sackler bankruptcy deal, and
| it 's possible they will end up throwing it out. But it's
| also possible they'll decide the opposite.
| phone8675309 wrote:
| They've stopped the deal from going into effect, which is
| what I think what the previous poster meant.
|
| You're right that they haven't thrown out the deal, but
| they've prevented it from going forward without further
| scrutiny as the Sacklers and their lobbyist thralls would
| have wanted.
| [deleted]
| asu_thomas wrote:
| The ruling class would love for you to think the supreme court
| stopped the Sackler deal but they absolutely did not. They only
| delayed it.
| inemesitaffia wrote:
| You might not be part of the ruling class. But you're
| definitely an elite
| Eumenes wrote:
| > - Hunter Biden's no-jail plea deal was rejected, and he goes
| to trial.
|
| His daddy's AG just assigned a special prosecutor, who already
| works for the government (and ironically was the one who gave
| Hunter the original sweetheart deal) ... seems sus
| maxbond wrote:
| He is the prosecutor who was assigned to the case by Trump's
| DOJ.
|
| Weiss _asked_ to be appointed special prosecutor.
|
| Appointing him as special prosecutor gives Biden's DOJ _less_
| control over the case.
|
| If they had put a new prosecutor in there, people would
| (rightly) be making noise about that, instead.
|
| https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/who-is-david-
| weiss-u...
| Eumenes wrote:
| I don't think it matters who appointed him, or which DOJ,
| or that he asked to. The guy has been working this case for
| years. Why has it been taking so long? He concluded his
| investigation with a very generous plea deal, which
| thankfully was rejected in the last minute. Get someone new
| and more importantly, independent. Merrick Garland already
| has his biased hands on this, he should recuse himself from
| any involvement in this case. Can you imagine the outrage
| if Trumps' AG was appointing special prosecutors to oversee
| criminal cases of his children?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Can you imagine the outrage if Trumps' AG was
| appointing special prosecutors to oversee criminal cases
| of his children?
|
| No, because I think Trump's political opponents
| understand that legally:
|
| (1) that's who, under the law, appoints Special Counsel,
| and
|
| (2) the appointment of Special Counsel is the legal
| mechanism for minimizing political influence in a
| particular sensitive criminal investigation, so its
| _good_ when that happens.
|
| And we don't have to speculate much, because the DOJ
| under Trump _did_ appoint Special Counsel, and I remember
| mostly positive outcry from Trump 's opponents and
| negative outcry from his _supporters_ when Trump 's
| (acting) AG appointed Special Counsel to investigate
| Trump himself. (There was negative outcry at the later
| political interference with the Special Counsel's report
| by Trump's later AG, but that's a different issue.)
|
| The "well, if the roles were reversed" counterfactual
| style of argument is usually a dumb way of the speaker
| just injecting unsubstantiated speculation to do
| whataboutism without facts, but its at its worst when the
| proposed counterfactual or something very close to it
| actually happened, and the treatment was exactly the
| opposite than what the argument presupposes.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| >Can you imagine the outrage if Trumps' AG
|
| You mean like how at least a few of the judges involved
| in Trumps many cases were directly appointed by him?
| Eumenes wrote:
| they should of recused themselves too and refused to
| oversee the cases ... I think Jeff Sessions did actually.
| maxbond wrote:
| > Why has it been taking so long?
|
| These things take time.
|
| > Get someone new and more importantly, independent.
|
| The entire point of being a special prosecutor is to have
| more independence.
|
| It is absolutely impossible for Garland to appoint
| someone perceived as more independent than someone
| appointed by Barr. If Garland fired Barr's prosecutor
| from the case and appointed someone else, people would
| interpret it as interference (reasonably!).
|
| > Merrick Garland already has his biased hands on this,
| he should recuse himself from any involvement in this
| case.
|
| Appointing a special prosecutor is pretty much
| equivalent.
|
| > Can you imagine the outrage if Trumps' AG was
| appointing special prosecutors to oversee criminal cases
| of his children?
|
| If Trump were president and his children were under
| criminal investigation, appointing a special prosecutor
| would be the correct thing to do. There would be outrage
| if he _didn 't_.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| This is a response to a flagged & dead sibling comment
| that, while wrong, I think is worth addressing and
| doesn't deserve flagging:
|
| > Special prosecutor's aren't supposed to work for the
| government
|
| No, that's literally who they work for.
|
| > They are generally retired lawyers or judges.
|
| Since the expiration of the law providing for
| _independent_ counsels in 1999, there have been 7 special
| counsels appointed under DOJ regulations.
|
| 0 have been _retired_ lawyers (all have been active
| lawyers in private or government practice), 0 have been
| _past_ (retired or otherwise) judges, and 3 of the 7 have
| been sitting US Attorneys at the time appointed, and 3 of
| the 7 were _former_ US Attorneys (the one that was never
| a US Attorney was a former state AG.)
| Eumenes wrote:
| [flagged]
| maxbond wrote:
| The commentary I've heard from prosecutors in the media,
| I believe from the Lawfare podcast but I can't swear to
| it, is that this gun charge is so minor it wouldn't
| normally be charged unless it was in combination with
| something worth prosecutor's time. (He lied on a piece of
| paperwork to get the gun about doing drugs. There's no
| evidence afaik that the gun was used in a crime. It's a
| federal crime, sure, but that is just not a huge deal.)
|
| Engaging in consensual commercial sex is generally not
| viewed as being worth the time of a federal prosecutor.
| Same for using drugs. Hunter Biden's influence pedaling
| business was sketchy and gross, but as far as anyone can
| tell - not illegal. (Not an endorsement, he seems like a
| piece of shit.)
|
| If I did those things, I would anticipate being in hot
| water with my local PD. I don't think the federal
| government would be impressed enough to even pass it on
| to the local PD. I wouldn't be surprised if I could take
| a plea deal and do community service, but I'm not a
| lawyer, who knows.
|
| The tax evasion is probably the most serious crime. Maybe
| you think someone should go to prison for that, I don't
| really see the value in punishing them over and above
| getting the taxes paid and maybe banning him from running
| a company for 5 years or whatever.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Can you imagine the outrage if Trumps' AG was
| appointing special prosecutors to oversee criminal cases
| of his children?
|
| Well, that's a good question. How outraged were you when
| he messed with those cases?
| https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/20/nyregion/trump-
| geoffrey-b...
| Eumenes wrote:
| That's bad too. The entire state of NY DOJ has been
| focused on Trump since 2016 However, its ironic that alot
| of the stuff is coming out a year before the 2024
| elections.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| It's not irony, most of the cases NY started were pretty
| unreasonable and more than a stretch, and have not gone
| very far, while the current stuff took this long for all
| the legal machines to get through, because it's really
| obnoxious to read through mountains of boxes of
| classified documents to figure out how bad it is, and
| attempting to claw back some partially destroyed evidence
| and flip important witnesses.
|
| This is how long a trial of an important person takes.
|
| Everything you've said has been less accurate than the
| headlines you've cribbed them from.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > It's not irony, most of the cases NY started were
| pretty unreasonable and more than a stretch, and have not
| gone very far
|
| You mean, like, the guilty on all counts result in the
| Trump Org tax fraud case or the abuse of charity funds
| for personal political interests case against Donald
| Trump, his children, and the Trunp Foundation that ended
| with millions in liability, various bans, and the
| disbanding of the Trump Foundation?
|
| Or something else that was a stretch that didn't go far?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The entire state of NY DOJ has been focused on Trump
| since 2016
|
| No, it hasn't. They've done plenty else. Probably spent
| more time on the NRA than Trump.
| vkou wrote:
| Considering that his playbook when it comes to legal
| cases against him consists of 'delay everything until
| either he, or the plaintiff drops dead from a heart
| attack', this doesn't seem ironic. It's just how he
| operates.
|
| While that is an excellent approach to take when some
| nobody is suing you in a civil court, criminal
| prosecutors often have a... Longer, more patient view on
| things. The wheels of justice grind slowly, and all that.
|
| The better question is 'How is he still walking around a
| free man?', when he makes a habit of threatening
| witnesses and judges.
| compsciphd wrote:
| do the people who put up his bail money lose it due to him
| violating the terms of the bail and having it be revoked? or do
| they get it back now as its not needed anymore?
| duxup wrote:
| My understanding is that generally you don't lose the bail
| money unless the person ultimately doesn't show up in court.
| There are exceptions and the judge has some discretion.
| eastbound wrote:
| I suppose if he showed up for jail, then the assets weren't
| seized.
| zerocrates wrote:
| My understanding is that the default federal rule is that you
| forfeit for any violation, but that the judge has discretion to
| decide otherwise.
|
| I doubt you'll see movement on, for example, the parents'
| house, but I could imagine the monetary portion being
| forfeited.
| loeg wrote:
| No, he didn't skip trial.
| TMWNN wrote:
| My understanding is that SBF's bail was put up by his parents
| (pledging their home) and family friends, at and out of Stanford,
| who put up their own funds. What happens to that?
| babyshake wrote:
| Presumably it gets returned once he is behind bars. I'm not an
| expert though.
| ars wrote:
| It does get returned. The money is not a punishment, it's
| just to make sure he shows up when told to.
|
| If he doesn't show.......
| duxup wrote:
| This wasn't his first round of meeting the judge about bail
| related violations too IIRC.
| swores wrote:
| I wouldn't normally approve of anyone writing this sort of
| comment, but fuck it:
|
| Do not bother reading comments in this thread.
|
| The hot takes are already ridiculous, and I honestly don't know
| why I either bothered to start reading, nor why I bothered to
| point out the flaws in 4 different comments already.
|
| I can't actually imagine what interesting things could be
| commented about it at this time that isn't just rehashing
| people's opinions of him that've been said a thousand times
| already, so I'm closing the thread and won't be coming back to
| read the inevitable 1000 comments that are coming.
|
| I'm just leaving this comment here in the hope that, if others
| agree enough to upvote it, maybe some of you will be spared
| wasting time like I just have.
| paulcole wrote:
| > The hot takes are already ridiculous, and I honestly don't
| know why I either bothered to start reading
|
| The ridiculous hot takes _are_ why I start reading!
| swores wrote:
| That's fair enough, enjoy!
| ciabattabread wrote:
| Come back when this thread has 1000 comments and the "more"
| link after the first thread.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Hint: it's often a good idea to use something like hckrnews.com
| to read stories after a significant delay. That gives time for
| the middlebrow comments[1] that shoot quickly to the top some
| time to get rebutted and sink.
|
| 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| How did he get $250m for bail to begin with?
| anonymoushn wrote:
| He didn't have to put up $250m, it was sufficient for family
| and associates to pledge their houses which are worth much less
| than that
| wmf wrote:
| Because bail numbers are fake. He put up a house and some other
| money but nowhere near $250M.
| pirate787 wrote:
| Incorrect. You don't understand the system. There is
| collateral posted against a bond for the full amount; if he
| skips town the people who posted bail collateral are
| responsible for the full amount, $250 million.
| [deleted]
| vkou wrote:
| A bank wouldn't lend people money on those terms, why on
| earth should a judge?
|
| If he doesn't have/can't borrow the full bail amount, I see
| no reason for him to be out on bail. Normal people don't
| get this kind of privilege.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| He didn't.
|
| The bail amount is the penalty for violation; while in the
| state systems it tends to have a simple mathematical
| relationship to the price the defendant pays for a bond (often
| regulated to around, or sometimes fixed at exactly, 10%), in
| the federal system it is more fluid.
| primitivesuave wrote:
| His bail was secured by ~$4m in collateral. If he flees from
| trial, the people who bailed him out would be held legally
| responsible for the full $250m.
| smsm42 wrote:
| Do I get it right that all SBF had to do to stay out of jail (at
| least until trial) is exactly nothing, and he still failed at
| that?
| tonetheman wrote:
| [dead]
| ladon86 wrote:
| House arrest? Multiple friends of mine have reported spotting him
| at SFO over the last few months.
|
| Here's a video from someone (who I don't know) from late March:
| https://twitter.com/sidtriv/status/1641641533240905728
| ttul wrote:
| He was permitted to travel to New York under the terms of his
| bail to meet with lawyers.
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| So what's with $250m bail? Will the judge take it? Or only if he
| escapes?
| vkou wrote:
| 1. There never was $250m.
|
| 2. Generally speaking, you only lose your bail money if you
| don't show up to court when a judge tells you to.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| > Members of the press, including counsel for The New York Times
| and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, had filed
| letters objecting to Bankman-Fried's detention, citing free
| speech concerns.
|
| > The final straw, according to prosecutors, was Bankman-Fried
| leaking private diary entries of his ex-girlfriend, Caroline
| Ellison, to the New York Times. Ellison pleaded guilty to federal
| charges in Dec. 2022.
|
| > The government added that Bankman-Fried had over 100 phone
| calls with one of the authors of the Times story prior to
| publication - many of which lasted for approximately 20 minutes.
|
| It seems someone at The NY Times is very sympathetic to him.
| swores wrote:
| > _" It seems someone at The NY Times is very sympathetic to
| him."_
|
| Has their coverage of him been positive? I've not read any of
| it so I don't have a clue, but in a hypothetical situation
| where you're a journalist at NYT who thinks he's a guilty &
| idiotic asshole, if he wanted to call you and start chatting
| away wouldn't you still take the calls and accept any documents
| he leaks to you despite not being sympathetic to him?
|
| It feels like to make the claim in your last sentence you need
| to show one or more articles that paint him sympathetically
| since his arrest, not just the fact that one or more
| journalists haven't refused to speak with him?
| [deleted]
| tokai wrote:
| > [Sam Trabucco] also writes crossword puzzles for The New York
| Times [0]
|
| > US prosecutors have not said Trabucco was involved in any
| wrongdoing even as he worked in Alameda's C-suite with several
| execs who are now facing a slew of charges. [1]
|
| hmm
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Trabucco
|
| [1] https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/currencies/meet-
| sam...
| zerocrates wrote:
| Writing some crossword puzzles for the Times is about the
| smallest quantum amount of "juice" a person could possibly
| have.
| maxbond wrote:
| The NYT keeps offering him rope in the form of a sympathetic
| ear, and SBF keeps hanging himself.
|
| If the NYT is his friend, I would hate to see what his enemies
| have in mind for him.
| asu_thomas wrote:
| > _It seems someone at The NY Times is very sympathetic to
| him._
|
| It's more likely (and all but certain) that persons involved
| with him or his ventures have meaningful influence at the NYT.
| Sympathy has little meaning in the presence of structural
| interests.
| [deleted]
| JimtheCoder wrote:
| [flagged]
| Evidlo wrote:
| This is the first time I've seen a prison rape joke on HN.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Sadly, I don't think he was joking.
| tdhz77 wrote:
| [flagged]
| 1letterunixname wrote:
| A product of an environment of infinite entitlement. Maybe he has
| a Twinkie defense?
| zerocrates wrote:
| I think this would be more of an "affluenza" case.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| To be That Guy(tm), the Twinkie Defense isn't just some dumb
| meme. It was literal defense used in double murder trial.
|
| In 1978, San Francisco supervisor Dan White went into city hall
| and shot killed mayor George Moscone and supervisor Harvey
| Milk.
|
| At trial, he claimed diminished capacity because of a blood
| sugar imbalance because he ate some Twinkies. The jury ended up
| acquitting him of premeditated murder, and instead found him
| guilty of the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscone%E2%80%93Milk_assassina...
| etc-hosts wrote:
| not exactly. This misinterpretation of what happened during
| the Dan White trial is all the fault of Paul Krassner
|
| https://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Myth-of-the-Twinkie-
| de...
|
| A better summary is the defense presented an argument that
| Dan White was massively depressed (Vietnam combat vet, just
| lost his job), and eating massive amounts of Twinkies was 1
| of the symptoms of his depression.
|
| Dan White's lawyer appeared on an episode of Star Trek
| https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/11/us/melvin-belli-dies-
| at-8...
| dragonwriter wrote:
| To be That Other Guy(tm), the problem with your contribution
| isn't that it might be seen as pedantic, but that its also
| wrong.
|
| > To be That Guy(tm), the Twinkie Defense isn't just some
| dumb meme. It was literal defense used in double murder
| trial.
|
| It is a dumb meme that has evolved around a misleading name a
| reporter gave to the defense at that trial, which has morphed
| into an myth about the nature of the defense that you now
| repeat as fact, despite linking sources explaining that it
| isn't.
|
| > At trial, he claimed diminished capacity because of a blood
| sugar imbalance because he ate some Twinkies.
|
| No, he didn't, as your own first source notes. His recent
| switch from being a health food nut to eating junk food (the
| context in which Twinkies were incidentally mentioned) was
| brought up as one of several external behavioral indicia of
| the longer tern mental breakdown the defense claimed he was
| going through, not its cause. And that longer term breakdown
| was context for the acute break they (and the psychiatrists
| called as expert witnesses) claimed White experienced that
| was the center of the diminished capacity defense.
| tedunangst wrote:
| What happened to the theory that he'd never be jailed? The expert
| analysts were so confident.
| JeremyNT wrote:
| This is _entirely_ a self-own, because he was trying to
| intimidate a witness.
|
| If SBF had done the "normal" white collar criminal move of
| hiring a really expensive team of lawyers and doing what they
| told him, he'd be free as a bird.
|
| But I guess SBF isn't your "normal" white collar criminal -
| he's a special kind of stupid.
| sharts wrote:
| He's Stanford special
| bbarnett wrote:
| Your honour, only a truly innocent man, panicking, afraid,
| would act so absurdly!
| sharts wrote:
| Perhaps they meant prison. This jail time is just in-lieu of
| bail until the actual trial.
|
| I think a lot of people still predict that he will be set free
| from any wrongdoing after the trial because of his massive
| donations and money laundering for the political class.
| WeylandYutani wrote:
| SBF is just the fall guy. They always catch the one who took it
| just a little too far in order to placate the masses and
| pretend that someone is policing the stock markets.
|
| For the record the guy is guilty as sin but so is everyone in
| crypto.
| stefan_ wrote:
| To be fair, prosecutors were trying hard to keep him out of it.
| elicash wrote:
| It's certainly true that prosecutors love when defendants
| keep talking publicly about the case. It makes their job much
| easier.
| asu_thomas wrote:
| The answer is so simple that I struggle to believe you couldn't
| think of it yourself. Statistically, the best bet by far was
| and still is that he wouldn't be jailed. His crimes are
| extremely common; being jailed or even convicted for them is
| extremely rare.
| [deleted]
| lusus_naturae wrote:
| I am sorry, but you're saying investment institutions
| routinely commit wire fraud? Um, is this true or one of those
| my-fave-youtube-debate-bro-said-its-true? Where are the
| whistleblowers? The SEC has a handsome program for such
| reporting. Or I guess I am naive.
| swores wrote:
| The people saying that were presumably making predictions about
| whether or not he'd be found guilty with a jail sentence (which
| hasn't yet happened), not that if he does something as stupid
| as witness tampering he wouldn't have his bail revoked (which
| is what has happened).
|
| Personally I always thought it extremely likely he would get a
| prison sentence, but I think you're being premature to act like
| people who didn't think that have already been proven wrong.
| wmf wrote:
| If he really owned the entire judiciary of the US and Bahamas
| his bail wouldn't have been revoked.
| parl_match wrote:
| Honestly, it sounds like his influence absolutely helped
| him get cushy terms of release. It was just after
| _repeated_ and _willful_ violations of the conditions of
| bail, that it was revoked. This was not his first run-in
| with the judge over his bail conditions, it's wild that he
| was allowed more.
| adrr wrote:
| What are you comparing it to? There is witness
| intimidation going right now on another high profile case
| and I doubt they'll revoke bail. I am curious what are
| the normal thresholds before you get bail revoked.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > There is witness intimidation going right now on
| another high profile case and I doubt they'll revoke
| bail.
|
| The Other Guy has the sense to do vague and diffuse
| public messaging that (so far, without more of a pattern
| or additional acts) that has still gotten him warned
| about continuing it.
| maxbond wrote:
| I think you missed the threads they're referencing. I see
| from your other comments you think there's a lot of hot takes
| in this thread. The threads around the time he was charged
| were full of nuclear takes about how the justice system was
| broken, how every minor development in the case meant he
| would get off scott free, etc. It also brought the
| antisemites of HN out of the woodwork to share conspiracy
| theories (given that SBF is a Jewish person who committed a
| financial crime). They were the roughest threads on HN I had
| seen at the time. (There were still good, insightful
| comments, but they were diamonds in the rough.)
|
| This is more or less an injoke. I completely see where
| they're coming from.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| Staying in the Bahamas after the thing blew up but before
| institutions started to spin their wheels was not the
| wisest choice a man could make. If he acted faster he could
| have pulled a Jho Law.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| You're forgetting how "He donated to democrats so he'll get
| off scott free"
| randallsquared wrote:
| People who were arguing that then probably now would
| argue that the politicians found a workaround: just
| having him not charged for bribery and campaign finance
| crimes. No need to investigate the recipients if the
| alleged crime is ignored!
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/27/prosecutors-drop-another-
| cha...
| function_seven wrote:
| Yeah, stupidest hot-take I ever saw in this case.
|
| No politician will stick their neck out for someone based
| on past donations if:
|
| 1. There is little hope for future money
|
| 2. The donor is universally reviled
|
| If anything, that donation history made the recipients
| even _more_ likely to turn on him. They must distance
| themselves.
| Ekaros wrote:
| There is time when you cut your useful idiots loose. And
| when they have run out of money, or you can make example
| of them makes perfect sense.
| Alupis wrote:
| Quit frankly, if SBF would keep his darn mouth shut and stop
| doing completely irrational stupid things - he probably would
| remain out on bail at least until his trial.
|
| He's become his own worst enemy it seems.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| "Shut the fuck up" is literally the best advice any defense
| lawyer gives.
|
| It's embarassing just how often it's ignored.
| godzillabrennus wrote:
| Running a large fraud for a long time is a pretty stupid
| thing. He's just being called stupid instead of a genius now
| that people have more context into his dealings.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| >have more context into his dealings.
|
| More like, now that he isn't making a profit.
| Alupis wrote:
| He's mostly being called stupid for his activities after
| his fraud was uncovered.
|
| He just can't seem to shut up.
| pcwalton wrote:
| Problem is, the personality traits that lead people to commit
| crimes in the first place are the same personality traits
| that lead people to eviscerate their own defense. The
| unfortunate truth is that most people who have the self-
| control to engender the best possible outcome for their case
| don't find themselves in court to begin with.
| twelve40 wrote:
| if he thought the leak will help his defense then it's not
| irrational at all, even if he has to pay for it now
| Alupis wrote:
| It's irrational in that his defense was mostly he was in
| easy over his head and had no intention of defrauding
| anyone. His actions are making that angle impossible.
| twelve40 wrote:
| being in over his head while being "manipulated by an
| evil ex" still sound pretty rational. pretty desperate,
| but not too inconsistent at least.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| if he wasn't an idiot he wouldn't have been, cant control
| stupid
|
| unless the theory was about collusion in the executive branch
| and white house, then you still have an independent judiciary
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Same thing that happened with the expert analysis of LK99. It
| turns out that the real experts tend to be quieter.
| refulgentis wrote:
| In our overly connected times, it can feel like there's
| always two tribes, ours, and the one with the immoral
| charlatans & savages.
|
| Buying into that leads to unpleasantly toned one-man morality
| plays, based on obviously false claims, like there were
| people claiming to be experts and then they claimed it was
| guaranteed it was a room temperature superconductor.
| Eji1700 wrote:
| I mean they weren't quiet, just drowned out.
|
| There's this mindset of trusting dreams/drama/personalities
| more than verifiable processes, and as communities like HN
| have shown, even people in fields associated with better
| logic clearly are willing to discard all the caution they'd
| normally use because they'd like it to be true and someone is
| saying it is.
|
| I feel like SBF actually represents this flaw wonderfully. A
| person who just does what he wants and has mostly been well
| enough off to dodge any sort of real consequences. He
| probably still thought he was doing nothing wrong and still
| does because the idea that he could be wrong is just not
| possible because he knows so much.
|
| Honestly my already low opinion of groups like WHO/SEC has
| dropped tremendously with recent events and how they were
| handled on drama/media reporting rather than actual evidence
| and science. This rush to the story is hellishly toxic to
| doing things right, and the vitriol people will spew if you
| conflict with them on it is gross.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| >even people in fields associated with better logic
|
| This is such an HN elitist opinion that needs to go away.
| Programmers aren't magically better at "logic" ie making
| good conclusions from messy data. We still have human
| brains, and are equally prone to the same exact logical
| fallacies and biases as everyone else. The human brain is
| an anti-rational system.
|
| Stop pretending we are special little geniuses just because
| we know advanced math or javascript.
|
| The only filter function for HN is a willingness to read
| text from people who think they are better than you
| Eji1700 wrote:
| I said associated for a reason. Personally I think most
| "smart" fields have about the same ratio of morons as any
| other.
| swores wrote:
| I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about LK99
| other than feeling smug for some weird reason?
|
| Maybe I was looking in the wrong place about people
| discussing LK99, but I've seen a lot of
| comments/tweets/articles/etc about it, and while there've
| been lots of optimistic discussions about how amazing a
| discovery it will be if proven true, and lots of people
| guessing whether it's more likely to be true, or fraud, or
| not-fraud but a mistake, I've seen practically nobody
| confidentially saying "this must be true". Have you? And even
| if you have, it hasn't yet been proven to not be true.
|
| So... what's the point of your snide comment?
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| I think this logic works the other way around: very few
| people were saying SBF was absolutely not going to jail,
| just that it was unlikely.
|
| As for LK99, I suppose I'm bummed the hype didn't pan out.
| It made me more skeptical of that kind of optimism, and it
| seemed somewhat related.
| jasonhansel wrote:
| Some people conflate cynicism with wisdom.
| fidotron wrote:
| Good. At this point SBF has become an amazing caricature of
| himself.
|
| I'm a very cynical old git, but even I have been amazed by the
| limited bounds of my imagination which is forever defeated by
| this story.
|
| Saying that, I do get the feeling he is now being scapegoated
| quite hard, and that probably serves to motivate his latest
| stupidities, but FTX required collective and not only individual
| madness. That must not get lost in all this.
| refulgentis wrote:
| > FTX required collective and not only individual madness.
|
| I think this either conflates crypto with FTX, or
| alternatively, SBF being on trial with being scapegoated.
|
| The other execs admitted they did something wrong and are
| pleading guilty. This is individual madness
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >The other execs admitted they did something wrong and are
| pleading guilty. This is individual madness
|
| They plead guilty because they were granted deals that
| involve testifying against SBF, and sang like canaries.
|
| But the feds have every intention of nailing Sam as hard as
| possible. There will be no plea bargaining for him. So it's
| either fight it in court, or take the max sentence. What
| we're seeing here are the last acts of a desperate man who
| knows he's screwed either way.
| itake wrote:
| Why stop at execs?
| lkjdsfsdf wrote:
| Nope, they were all crazy. Look at the things Ellison was
| writing and saying back then. And the money she was losing
| while claiming to be a savant.
|
| Look at the programmer who put in the code that was something
| like TRADE_IS_ALLOWED = HAS_POSITIVE_BALANCE ||
| TRADER_IS_ALMEDA.
|
| Just because they're pleading out doesn't mean they
| are/weren't crazy.
| refulgentis wrote:
| I'm not sure what's crazy, insane, or demonstrates madness
| with that, that's good ol' fashioned criming. Re: the
| readings I was assigned, her Tumblr is standard fare for
| the age and intellectual mileu, nothing crazy.
| babyshake wrote:
| Not to be all woke, but "crazy" and "madness" probably
| aren't the right words for what happened here.
| finite_depth wrote:
| Depends on if you consider "crazy" to include rampant
| narcissism fueled by the usual ridiculous elitism and
| we're-smart-so-everything-will-work failure mode of
| "rationalist" culture.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| They could also just be, you know, selfish assholes.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| If a flat broke person living on the street, doing lots
| of drugs, mentally stressed by their circumstance, starts
| making wild self-aggrandizing claims completely divorced
| from reality, it isn't controversial to say that person
| is 'crazy' or mentally ill. People might nitpick the
| terminology you use to describe that person or criticize
| you for needlessly drawing attention to it, but nobody
| goes to bat for the sanity of a homeless person saying
| crazy shit about themselves.
|
| But if a very rich person living in mansion, doing lots
| of drugs, mentally stressed by the enormity of their
| crimes, starts making wild self-aggrandizing claims
| completely divorced from reality are they crazy? Suddenly
| people have an interest in defending their mental sanity.
| Why? Because rich people are entitled to more respect
| than the homeless by virtue of their wealth, and
| therefore we shouldn't put common labels like crazy on
| them? Or maybe it's because a rich luxurious lifestyle
| makes people immune to the onset of insanity? Were
| Caligula and Nero not crazy then? On the contrary, I
| think being very wealthy puts you at greater risk for
| becoming crazy; the more elite somebody is the more
| divorced from the typical human experience they become.
| Power and wealth corrupts their minds, inflating their
| egos to such an extent they lose track of reality. These
| people were all crazy. Maybe they weren't "mentally ill"
| in any biological sense, but they were _crazy_.
| refulgentis wrote:
| Not be all unpolitical, but maybe people use "woke" to
| mean "people who turn me into a snowflake"
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Diabolic has religious connotations, but just the right
| religious connotations.
| nemo44x wrote:
| They were on a lot of drugs. Drugs make you say and do shut
| that in retrospect looks crazy. But sounded like a good
| idea at the time.
| BSEdlMMldESB wrote:
| > That must not get lost in all this.
|
| I fear it will. so long as we keep being all confused between
| individual things (actions of persons) and systemic truths
| (actions of institutions). e.g. "Putin be Bad"... uhm, he's
| just the face of a large government.... he does not exist in
| isolation.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| Does anyone know where Sam Trabucco is or what happened to him?
| Leave as Co-CEO a few months before a total fraud collapse and
| everything is fine? There is 0% chance this was only happening
| after he left.
| scrlk wrote:
| Good question.
|
| Sam Trabucco might end up as the equivalent of Lou Pai from
| the Enron scandal. Left just in time before the whole thing
| came crashing down and escapes all criminal charges.
| bbarnett wrote:
| To be fair, he could have realised all the blather was lie
| after lie, talked to a lawyer, and was counciled gtfo.
|
| Sometimes you get pulled in, little by little, then you
| wake up and realise what sort of situation you're in.
|
| And if he was legitimately thinking "wait, this is
| wrong"...
| dragonwriter wrote:
| While I personally don't think--now--that SBF in
| retrospect likely posed this kind of risk, the scale of
| the grift is the kind of thing where someone pulling it
| off is quite likely to have motive and means to cause
| quite heinous outcomes to perceived threats.
|
| A quiet but apparently amicable distancing may be the
| most someone feels safe doing.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| > Ellison's testimony claims that the fraud between FTX
| and Alameda took place as early as 2019 and Trabucco
| joined Alameda the same year. In crypto circles, the
| Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) graduate is
| suspected of being aware of financial misconduct if he
| was the co-CEO for that long and if Ellison's story is
| accurate.
| hackerlight wrote:
| > "wait, this is wrong"
|
| More like, "wait, this is getting too risky from a
| personal legal/criminal standpoint". If he knew something
| was off and he cared about someone other than himself, he
| should have become a whistleblower.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| I'm wondering if he did and if he is going to be the
| prosecution star witness walking down the aisle the first
| day of the trial. It's too weird that there is no mention
| I can find anywhere of a warrant for his arrest etc.
| They've gone after everyone else like Gary Wang and
| Nishad Singh and of course Caroline.
| samstave wrote:
| >unpopular opinion ;;
|
| SBF's parents deeply need investigation here - they are both
| law proffs at stanford.
|
| THere is not a chance they dont have dirty fingers in his
| dealings - where are their political donations from the money
| SBF/Alameda.
|
| I hate how we talk about high level financial crimes (Trump
| org, Biden Org, Holmes, SBF, etc - and we fail to ever look at
| their children, parents, siblings, etc in their bubble for
| similar investment windfalls, or donation channels/ammounts.
|
| -
|
| @lotsofpulp (I love pulp BTW, grew up with huge orange trees)
|
| The "we" is not just some no-face prosecutor, its everyone -
| but "proof" that they arent looking into it is, have you ever
| seen a Pelosi, Biden, Kushner child with massive grift based on
| their familial insider trading knowledge that was exposed.
|
| Take Kushner as the primary example. So, we know that he
| received billions (not just from Qatar), we know that his
| family has a history of real-estate fraud, and everyone just
| ignores all of this.
|
| This isnt a political comment : its a comment against the
| financial frauds that are so massive throughout and we do
| 'surface-level' looking into it.
|
| --
|
| I cant believe I have to outline this for some....
| wmf wrote:
| Don't worry; it's documented that money stolen from FTX went
| to the parents. It's grinding slowly.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| It is not an unpopular and I am sure parents are under
| scrutiny as well if the law enforcement is doing its job at
| all.
|
| If there is any hesitation in going after the parents of an
| accused individual, it is that.. they are parents. The sins
| of a child are not those of the parent and vice-versa, at
| least in my book. We have our own scorecards as it were.
|
| But.. if there is proof of wrongdoing? No problem.
| samstave wrote:
| NOPE.
|
| If you are in the middle of a scandal of any of these
| scales - EVERY SINGLE PERSON you've ever come in contact
| with should be under scrutiny.
|
| And, as an example, when your father is in prison for
| financial and real-estate fraud, your father in law has
| decades of fraud cases against them, multiple impeachments,
| indictments, etc...
|
| Caught on setting up back-channel comms
|
| Accept $2 billion dollars from a foreign government, and
| basically walking through the USG as a ghost (as is
| hunter)... you need to be brought down.
|
| Jared should be considered PRIME in such a case - such as
| Kushner is.
|
| -
|
| Edit:
|
| I was not arguing against you.
|
| EDIT
|
| @A4ET8a8uTh0
|
| No, I am saying that the defacto needs to be a scale of
| frauds that literally is public knowledge and everyone
| knows what the F it is.
|
| So if you're a Holmes, or a SBF or even a QWEST (Recall
| them (that was tax fraud - not actual product fraud) Aside
| from the fact that they setup a national fiber infra along
| the tracks, and then had it basically siezed by cerberus,
| such as MAI-west and PAIC....
|
| Uh, I would love yo talk to others who know much about
| internet cabling infra that was done through late 1980s and
| such before I forget it as I get too old.
|
| Aside:
|
| Look at the vids of the fires in Maui and you see some
| where they show pole-lines where there isa serious
| wave/flux in the lower cables (the ones with the round
| junction tubes -- and then the 4/6 wires at the top if the
| pole....
|
| The ones that are super FN wobbly are FIBER (perhaps some
| coax, not sure on that) - but those splices are lower as no
| electricitry risk to work on them.
|
| But they are heavier. So more pront to force wind to swathe
| them out.... thus coms are down.
|
| We need all cell towers to have underground.
|
| Anyway - this disaster has ressurrected a F ton of my
| former infra design exp....
|
| Would love to discuss.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Do you see me arguing against charges where there is
| evidence something is up? No.
|
| What I am saying is that any normal parent will protect
| their kids.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > I hate how we talk about high level financial crimes (Trump
| org, Biden Org, Holmes, SBF, etc - and we fail to ever look
| at their children, parents, siblings, etc in their bubble for
| similar investment windfalls, or donation channels/ammounts.
|
| Who is "we"? If you mean prosecutor, do you have a source
| that they fail to look at the networks of those they are
| prosecuting?
| confoundcofound wrote:
| You shouldn't be downvoted.
|
| I don't know if it's willful ignorance or what, but most
| people can't grok the fact that children do not develop in a
| vacuum. They are in most cases a reflection of their parents'
| traits and values. Worse for SBF, it is entirely plausible
| that they had a direct hand in enabling his fraudulent
| behavior. They were politically-connected Stanford lawyers.
| It would be foolish to dismiss the possibility of them
| opening doors and providing cover for their son.
|
| Perhaps an extreme comparison, but I feel the same exact way
| about adolescent school shooters. We are so quick to absolve
| and sanctify the parents as if their child's violent
| tendencies emerged suddenly and spontaneously.
| fidotron wrote:
| To be (sadly) honest this is exactly what I was thinking
| when I wrote the comment at the top, but suspected it would
| have been buried for being so direct. It is gratifying to
| see some people here with guts to say what they think.
|
| As a society we have now a possibly exaggerated tendency to
| ascribe any positive contributions by an individual to
| their environmental circumstances (this is definitely more
| true where I am in Canada, but it is becoming more true
| over time in the US), while we have a tendency to assume
| all the bad things can be blamed on a single leader to
| absolve everyone else of all responsibility for their
| supporting roles. A slight correction is in order imo.
| JustLurking2022 wrote:
| We don't know how aware they were of they initial fraud -
| maybe not at all, maybe more than we've heard so far.
|
| That said, we do know that he committed several additional
| offences, including the ones described in this article, while
| under house arrest at their residence. That alone should
| warrant further investigation and call their conduct into
| question, along with their standing in the legal community.
| rubyn00bie wrote:
| This feels like the approach organized crime takes where they
| go after everyone you know regardless of culpability. I'm not
| saying they shouldn't be investigated if there is evidence
| pointing to the fact, but it's very believable to me that
| they never questioned it.
|
| SBF seems like the sort of person to flaunt their "success"
| to side skirt questions. For those around him, I think they
| believed it more than anyone, because the world was revering
| him an undisputed genius. His parents pride, and background,
| probably put blinders on any signals of nefarious activity.
| They were also watching billionaire investors dump money into
| FTX assuming they weren't total fucking idiots... but they
| were.
|
| Smart, wealthy people, are often children of luck more than
| ability and unable to discern between to two because their
| entire existence inextricably interweaves the two. Look no
| further than the demigod status American oligarchs have
| despite being examples of capitalisms inefficiencies (there's
| no cream to skim in perfect capitalism which is the real
| source of their immense wealth).
| cyanydeez wrote:
| Trump: steal money from tubes, tamper at will.
|
| SBF: steal money from Wall Street, best not do anything
| danielfoster wrote:
| This is a win-win for everyone since it will also let SBF start
| serving his sentence early.
| swores wrote:
| If he considered starting serving time early a win for himself
| then he could've chosen not to be bailed. Therefore I don't see
| how you can call it a win for him if it's not what he wants.
| danielfoster wrote:
| He'll be grateful to have some credit for time served once
| he's sentenced.
| wmf wrote:
| Six weeks won't do much against 100 years.
| colesantiago wrote:
| Good.
|
| We need all crypto executives to begin sizing up jumpsuits for
| their role in creating unregulated crypto companies that do
| nothing other than scam people.
|
| The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they still grind these
| scammers into jail. This is just the start.
| Animats wrote:
| Yes. So far, just for August:
|
| "August 10, 2023 -- Bittrex settles with SEC for $24 million"
|
| "August 7, 2023 -- Bitsonic CEO arrested for allegedly stealing
| $7.5 million"
|
| "August 7, 2023 -- Rumors swirl that Huobi executives have been
| arrested, exchange is insolvent,"
|
| "August 7, 2023 -- Worldcoin warehouse in Nairobi raided by
| authorities"[1]
|
| Crypto companies are running out of safe havens for unregulated
| activity. SBF was arrested in the Bahamas. Mainland China shut
| down most of the Bitcoin miners. Britain finally decided that
| the Financial Crimes Authority, not the Gambling Commission,
| had jurisdiction over crypto. The SEC and the CFTC stopped
| feuding and decided to just handle it as ordinary crime. Cyprus
| stopped being the safe haven for financial crime within the EU.
| There's still Bulgaria and Israel, and maybe Russia, but
| operating in those countries has its own problems.
|
| [1] https://web3isgoinggreat.com/
| TwoFactor wrote:
| It is not true that all crypto companies are scams, and
| especially not true that all crypto executives belong in jail.
| phone8675309 wrote:
| What actual, not theoretical, uses of crypto, aside from
| unregulated speculation, do you believe are non-scam uses?
| dcow wrote:
| So the "probable cause" is that SBF is meeting with journalists
| and sharing evidence that might bring into question the
| credibility of the prosecution's star witness? Hmm I thought
| witness tampering was more serious like trying to pay the witness
| off or making false accusations or intimidating them something.
|
| I mean all this guy's co-conspirators have been bought off by the
| prosecution to testify against him. I can't help but feel like
| his action's are at least understandable. Unless he's supposed to
| save all his ammo for the actual court case and attack the
| credibility directly there. I'm obviously not a lawyer but I
| didn't realize such subtle actions were considered witness
| tampering... wouldn't we want to know all the details about a
| witness? If there's real reason to be worried about someone's
| credibility wouldn't we want to know about it?
|
| Without knowing better, I'd probably be fighting tooth and nail
| in whatever way possible to not by martyred alone while my co-
| conspirators walk with a slap on the wrist because that's how
| criminal justice works, whether I deserved it or not.
|
| EDIT: just to be clear, I'm not making any statement as to
| whether I agree or disagree with SBF or whatnot. I am just trying
| to understand what actually happened here and surprised that
| speaking with journalists falls under witness tampering. TIL.
| cmpbl wrote:
| I don't feel strongly on this, but you could read it as an
| intimidation tactic: I have so much over you that I can print
| your diaries in the NYT... just see what I have in my pocket if
| you really cross me.
| Marinus wrote:
| Good. And I hope the NYT looses readers over their biased
| reporting.
| etc-hosts wrote:
| I was wondering why SBF was not immediately jailed when he was
| caught communicating with ex-FTX employees with Signal earlier
| this year.
|
| Also the news reported he was installing VPNs so that he could
| 'watch football online' or something about as stupid.
| RegularOpossum wrote:
| FTX advertised on fortune cookies at my local Chinese takeout
| restaurant. I'm not sure what else needs to be said.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-11 23:00 UTC)