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

201–210 of 748 posts

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

#201

Post by SilasX »

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…

Yeah, and he was also in a state where the same strategy kept working again and again, so he may have been convinced it's a fundamental aspect of reality.

Any time SBF ran into trouble, he could just raise another round of financing, or borrow against artificial valuations, or "smooth things over" with the right people.

Once that happens enough, I imagine a lot of people would start to feel some cosmic entitlement to it, like that's just how it is, the FTT tokens must be worth $24 each, it's only a matter of "getting liquidity"[1], you can always raise more money, you can always call in a favor, you can always borrow against what you think the assets are worth, there's no reason to hold customer assets in their original form.

Heck, even to the very last days, when his attorneys and CFO were telling him he had to declare bankruptcy, he adamantly insisted that new funding was just about to come through -- and even that he got the offer moments after declaring -- but, of course, he can't say who, or under what terms, even why they would invest. [2]

Personally, I always try to maintain a frame of "these good times don't have to last, they can go away at any moment, so make sure you're ready for if/when that happens". But maybe I'd falter too, in the same position.

[1] A frame even informed observers buy into! Earlier comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33539326

[2] ctrl-f for "Mr. Bankman-Fried was also frustrated.": https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/technology/sam-bankman-fr...

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

#202

Post by rootusrootus »

p0pcult wrote: post #193
rootusrootus wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's unfortunate that anything you say to law enforcement can be used against you - but none of it can be used for you. Is it really unfortunate? There is simply an implicit assumption that humans avoid incriminating themselves when possible but are very quick to offer excuses. That seems to align pretty well with my experience. Therefore, we assume that if someone says something contrary to their own interest is i…

>Is it really unfortunate? Yes; the system should not be biased towards guilt.

This is arguably biased towards justice, not guilt.

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

#203

Post by comte7092 »

jiscariot wrote: post #189
comte7092 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

He was the #2 donor behind Soros to Democratic candidates. It's not every day that the number two gets indicted for a multi-billion dollar fraud. It is good to see questions around influence arise.

Questions around influence are good, but what I’m referring to is different.

There were numerous posts on this forum who were adamant that nothing would happen to SBF because they were certain that he had the Democratic Party bought and paid for. It’s the certainty that I’m calling out here (“comic book level), not the skepticism.

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

#204

Post by wintogreen74 »

PraetorianGourd wrote: post #162
bredren wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we have some examples of people who have amassed great real or perceived fortunes (and power) that have not become drunk on it? Musk on stage with Chapelle last night, Elizabeth Holmes, or SBF’s whole schtick, who are the ones who have kept their feet on the ground? What are the attributes of these others who don’t lose themselves in fawning attention and (sometimes short-lived) mountains of capital?

While not popular here, I would say Bezos has done a relatively good job of keeping his head amongst madness.

It IS pretty damning that Bezos (and Gates IMO) are the ones held up as "not letting the wealth and power change you". Bezos literally flew in a giant cock-rocket wearing a cowboy hat.

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

#205

Post by polishdude20 »

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…

Where do people who do these kind of crimes go when they're sent to jail? Like.. is there a jail for financial criminals? A place where you're not sharing a bunk with a serial killer but just a billion dollar fraudster?

Or are they usually put into the same place?

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

#206

Post by PraetorianGourd »

wintogreen74 wrote: post #204
PraetorianGourd wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While not popular here, I would say Bezos has done a relatively good job of keeping his head amongst madness.

It IS pretty damning that Bezos (and Gates IMO) are the ones held up as "not letting the wealth and power change you". Bezos literally flew in a giant cock-rocket wearing a cowboy hat.

Sure that is great comedy fodder, but it isn't really at the same level of the others.

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

#207

Post by SilasX »

pliftkl wrote: post #46
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?

If you tell a police officer that you did a crime, then your words are admissible as evidence against you. If you tell a police officer that you did not commit a crime, you can't have the police officer testify in your defense that you told him that you did not commit the crime. Witnessing things is a completely different matter.

Ehhh that's still misleading. It makes it sound like when the officer testifies about your statements, it goes through a magical filter in which only the inculpatory(is that the word?) stuff can come in, but not the exculpatory. Like...

During Mirandized interrogation:

Doe: "I grabbed her wrists after she picked up a knife to attack me."

In court:

Prosecutor: "What, if anything, did you learn from questioning Mr. Doe?"

Officer: "He said he grabbed her wrists."

Defense attorney on cross-examination: "In what context did Mr. Doe grab her wrists?"

Officer: "After she picked up a kni--"

Prosecutor: "Objection! Hearsay!"

Judge: "Sustained. Jury will disregard anything about the accuser picking up a knife. Wrist grabbing stuff is fine."

^Not remotely how it works, at all, but what you might falsely believe from being told "your words are admissible against you, not for you".

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

#208

Post by jpmattia »

salawat wrote: post #183
jpmattia wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curses! Foiled again! Does it help that I've now removed the fiber?

Odds are the legal system will converge on a non-technical, highly abstract meaning of "wire" to the effect of "any medium for conveyance of a signal over long distances (where long distances can reasonably be concluded to encompass multiple jurisdictions). This is why Legalese and English are truly seperate beasts linguistically.

Alas, it looks like I'll have to use my Maxwellian knowledge for good rather than evil after all.

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

#209

Post by egberts1 »

Kubuxu wrote: post #164
fein wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carrier pigeons should still work.

Pigeons would probably fall under `mail fraud`.

If the laws of USPS made during 1800s pigeon mail carrier are still on the book, then yeah, mail fraud.

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

#210

Post by revicon »

polishdude20 wrote: post #205
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…

Where do people who do these kind of crimes go when they're sent to jail? Like.. is there a jail for financial criminals? A place where you're not sharing a bunk with a serial killer but just a billion dollar fraudster? Or are they usually put into the same place?

Minimum security prison, at least in the United States.

https://blog.globaltel.com/white-collar-prison/

Post reply on HN