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

221–230 of 748 posts

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

#221

Post by pcwalton »

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.

> It is good to see questions around influence arise.

If he hadn't gotten indicted in, like, a couple of years, then sure. But people were assuming he wouldn't be indicted days after FTX collapsed.

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

#222

Post by singleshot_ »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #54
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?

IANAL. But it's unlikely the Police officer actually "witnessed" anything that'll help you. If you tell police officer you did something bad, it's essentially a confession and reported as such. If you tell police officer you did something good, it's hearsay - you told it to officer who told it to judge & jury. Then there's jurisdictional details as to their role and rules of evidence etc that will vary from country t…

There are plenty of exceptions to the hearsay rule, though; there are also times when something that seems like it’s hearsay isn’t. Exception: maybe you made the statement to the cop while you were covered in blood and blubbering about something you had witnessed, making it an excited utterance. Or maybe your lawyer is eliciting the statement from the cop not to suggest to the jury that it’s true, but to show you had no motive, making it fall outside of the hearsay rule.

Police have a responsibility to testify truthfully under oath, within the constraints of the rules on hearsay. But that doesn’t mean they are forbidden from saying anything in your favor, no matter what.

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

#223

Post by spookthesunset »

jdgoesmarching wrote: post #154
Macha wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

At this point it also probably makes it easier for law-specific OCR software to round up the standard metadata. With the sheer volume of paperwork in that industry, nobody is interested in reinventing the regex wheel for every document.

Not to mention the real cost of every person reading each document having to relearn how this document is laid out vs every other document. There is a non-trivial human cost to not having a standard document format. Even if it is old and crusty.

Also looks like most courts have a style guide for you to follow: https://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/Manual_of_style.pdf

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

#224

Post by three_seagrass »

bigwavedave wrote: post #175
hef19898 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you have to worry about falcons, or Blackadder. Smoke signs, maybe... but then you have to worry about the weather and wild fires... Seems they thought that one through!

What about flag signaling? Asking for a friend.

Ok as long as you don't use a halyard, since rope could be considered wire.

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

#225

Post by xdavidliu »

xivzgrev wrote: post #150
estebank wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you meant to say "That’s the overarching pont".

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

#226

Post by gamblor956 »

hprotagonist wrote: post #35
Xeoncross wrote: post #18

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.

OTOH, as a former public defender I have no problems talking with the police.

The police aren't your friend. They're also not your enemy.

Talking to the police as part of an investigation doesn't make you a suspect. Seriously, how do people think criminal investigations are done? Talking to witnesses is a huge part of investigating. People very rarely finger themselves as potential suspects; it's almost always the other witnesses who identify them as suspects.

If you're worried that you've done something wrong, talk to a lawyer first. 99.9% of the time, they'll tell you it's fine. Of course, if you tell the police you need to talk to your lawyer first, they'll want to know why you think you need a lawyer; if I were your lawyer, that's the first thing I'd wonder too. And if you weren't considered a potential suspect before you definitely will be on their short list after.

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

#228

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#229

Post by ALittleLight »

spookthesunset wrote: post #220
jpmattia wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And the prosecution will spend an entire day trotting out some physicist in front of the jury saying why light and radio are the same thing. I’d love to hear the defense question the physicist about why they are wrong

I think the defense would handle that pretty easily. Question the physicist until things are confusing, get him to repeatedly state that he is not an expert on the law or legal definitions (he is a physicist) and leave the jury thinking "Well, I didn't understand that guy, I'm sure it was some physics thing, but doesn't apply to the law."

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

#230

Post by kemotep »

jbverschoor wrote: post #159
kemotep wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying if I buy ads to promote your candidacy using illegal funds that the election you won is illegitimate? How would we go about enforcing that?

That’s what banks do with normal people or small businesses. Source of capital, AML etc

Do you have evidence of banks stealing money from depositors and not being prosecuted?

We are in a comment section of an announcement of charges against a CEO of a “bank” that did such and will face a lifetime in prison if convicted. Every example of a bank stealing from depositors I can find has people facing consequences. I guess that we would not hear about instances of people getting away with their crimes but that would make it not wide spread and rare or your claim unprovable due to a lack of evidence.

Post reply on HN