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

91–100 of 748 posts

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

#91

Post by rootusrootus »

jayess wrote: post #49
andrewmutz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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/art…

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.

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

#92

Post by birracerveza »

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…

No, no, let him talk.

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

#93

Post by techdmn »

ivraatiems wrote: post #61
dilawar wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would argue they have this belief because it is so often true. Exceptions are surprising to many people.

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

#94

Post by tptacek »

2devnull wrote: post #83
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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?

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.

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

#95

Post by paulpauper »

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…

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

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

#96

Post by tptacek »

thefaux wrote: post #86
2devnull wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do we even have civics in most schools anymore?

Yes.

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

#97

Post by DonHopkins »

yabones wrote: post #67
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

Unless some stool pigeon testifies against you.

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

#98

Post by Ozzie_osman »

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…

But, he has a savior complex... And you should too!

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

#99

Post by gizmo686 »

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…

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.

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

#100

Post by comte7092 »

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…

>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.

Post reply on HN