Live data from Hacker News

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

justice.gov

141–150 of 748 posts

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

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It all depends. For a speeding ticket, giving your info to the police tends to make it easier, although you do not have to answer his questions.

The lawyer mentions this in his talk.

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

#142

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…

People keep saying this, but honestly, does anyone really think it makes one iota of difference? Fact is that there is a huge paper trail of SBF's malfeasance, nevermind the fact that his co-conspirators appear to be turning against him. If anything, his interviews seemed to be his attempt to argue for negligence over malice in his case. Yes, SBF is going to prison for a long time. No, I don't think anyone has made a…

Yes it has made a difference. In white-collar crimes, prosecutors have to prove intent. That means they have to somehow find evidence that the defendant meant to do various things improperly. SBF has literally given interviews where he has stated the required intent for some of the crimes.

As an unrelated aside, note that this is also a way of punishing lower classes of people more severely. If you shoplift, prosecutors don't have to prove you meant to do that rather than just accidentally failing to pay. Generally laws for intent are for people that legislators can identify with, and there is no intent requirement for people legislators don't personally identify with.

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

#143

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?

Your theory of the genetic transmission of legal knowledge is an interesting one. We await your research for further study.

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

#144

Is there some reason why this kind of stuff is typed up on a typwriter?

Various legal systems have standards for the form for which documents should be submitted to them which are surprisingly nitpicky in terms of items like fonts and spacing. Of course, these standards were created when typewriters were the dominant use case, so had deference to what typewriters could actually do. Even though most of the typewriter use has fallen out of fashion, the standards remain, with the results that the documents look like they came out of a typewriter even if (as I suspect in this case) it's just been printed then faxed.

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

#145
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?

That kind of phrasing is boilerplate for indictments. It's used even in the most nailed-down circumstances. Here's a bit from Zacarias Moussaoui's indictment for 9/11 [0]:

> On or about September 11, 2001, Saeed al-Ghamdi, Ahmed al-Nami, Ahmed al-Haznawi, and Ziad Jarrah hijacked United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757, which had departed from Newark, New Jersey bound for San Francisco at approximately 8:00 a.m. After resistance by the passengers, Flight 93 crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania at approximately 10:10 a.m., killing all on board.

I mean, if they're being careful about the date of that, they'll do it for all dates. (Curiously, though, the very next paragraph in that indictment doesn't use the "on or about" qualifier.)

[0] https://www.justice.gov/archives/ag/indictment-zacarias-mous...

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

#146

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...

Or he didn't want to file for Chapter 11 because he is obsessed with being in the limelight. That would also explain why he can't shut up.

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

#147

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".

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

Lawyer here. I give this guy’s book out to anyone I care about. Friends, family. I even highlight the bit at the end with the practical advice. Everyone needs to know this.

The friendliest police officer in the world is not your friend

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

#148

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…

>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 mill…

His donations to Democrats accounted for 0.025% of all the money Democrats spent on the midterm election last month. Anyone who genuinely believed that can buy you a get out of jail free card for billions of dollars in fraud should seriously re-evaluate how they think the world works.

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

#149
Was listening to C-SPAN, they said his written statement for the record of the hearing was very offensive. "I would like to state, under oath," and then two words they wouldn't repeat.

Doing a Google search of "SBF Fuck You" shows he's already told regulators and his lawyers to go F themselves, I'm guessing he said the same to the US Congress.

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

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

My father is a civil engineer. That doesn't qualify me to build a bridge.

Sure. But you probably know a few basics about bridges. That’s the overarching point - a basic lawyer thing is if you are ever in trouble, don’t talk to anyone: cops, media, etc. so it’s curious why he decided to anyway.
Post reply on HN