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

121–130 of 748 posts

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

#121

Post by pseingatl »

belter wrote: post #106
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…

Last interview. Some pressure applied here... https://unusualwhales.com/sbf-interview

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.

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

#122

Post by hef19898 »

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…

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...

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

#123

Post by johndhi »

jayess wrote: post #11

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.

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.

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

#124

Post by mikeyouse »

likpok wrote: post #64
ivraatiems wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

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

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

#126

Post by tptacek »

rootusrootus wrote: post #109
likpok wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

This was said about Holmes, too. It matters what he actually ends up convicted of. Early speculation always runs high.

Not so much. Holmes guideline sentence redlined the sentencing levels too; she got a significantly lower sentence than the guidelines allowed.

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

#127

Post by pseingatl »

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?

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

#129

Post by cycrutchfield »

rootusrootus wrote: post #115
batmenace wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I agree; politicians have a singular goal -- reelection. Supporting SBF at this point can only hurt. They will not be extending him any favors.

What do you expect politicians to do with respect to prosecution by the DOJ? Genuinely curious

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

#130

Post by freyr »

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 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?

Post reply on HN