Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 748 posts

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#51

Post by danielfoster »

trillic wrote: post #24

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 wi…

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."

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#52

Post by danso »

TrickyRick wrote: post #44
hprotagonist wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE obligatory “don’t talk to the police” link.

I'm impressed it took a whole 33 minutes for this to be linked!

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)

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#53

Post by dilawar »

ivraatiems wrote: post #12

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 i…

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.

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#54

Post by NikolaNovak »

andrewmutz wrote: post #39
Xeoncross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

If an officer testified in support of you about what he witnessed, why would that be hearsay?

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...

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#55

Post by mh- »

jeffbee wrote: post #34
outside1234 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means that they have identified acts back to 2019 but are not foreclosing on finding more acts earlier.

Things that happened earlier than 2019 have dates less than 2019, no?

(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

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#56

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ivraatiems wrote: post #12

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 i…

> 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.

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#57

Post by mh- »

hammock wrote: post #29
outside1234 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means that they have identified acts back to 2019 but are not foreclosing on finding more acts earlier.

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

oops, I didn't see your reply when I posted mine. yours is a clearer explanation.

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#58

Post by [deleted] »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #47
phire wrote: post #42

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?

> 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?

[deleted]

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#59

Post by TrickyRick »

batmenace wrote: post #33
masterof0 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowing how connected the guy is, I'm guessing he'll only serve a few years at most. I sincerely hope I'm mistaken.

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

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.

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#60

Post by [deleted] »

jayess wrote: post #14
ivraatiems wrote: post #12

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 i…

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]
Post reply on HN