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

61–70 of 748 posts

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

#61

Post by ivraatiems »

dilawar wrote: post #53
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.

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.)

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

#62

Post by ivraatiems »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56
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…

Oh, I believe he believed it. I just can't imagine an impartial observer from outside his lil universe believing it.

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

#63

Post by lotsofpulp »

danso wrote: post #52
TrickyRick wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Should be shown in elementary schools as part of the curriculum.

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

#64

Post by likpok »

ivraatiems wrote: post #13
dereg wrote: post #6

It should be noted that SBF is facing 165 years in prison.

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"

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).

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

#65

Post by AndrewStephens »

jeffbee wrote: post #15

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?

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?

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

#67

Post by yabones »

jpmattia wrote: post #16

> "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!

RFC-1149 is the only safe way to commit fraud.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1149

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

#68

Post by jpmattia »

Kab1r wrote: post #40
jpmattia wrote: post #16

> "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!

Aren't light waves and radio waves the same phenomenon at different wavelengths?

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.

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

#69

Post by danso »

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…

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)

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

#70

Post by [deleted] »

dilawar wrote: post #53
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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN