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

251–260 of 748 posts

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

#251

Post by Melting_Harps »

jwmoz wrote: post #77
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…

SBF is quite obviously on the spectrum and I think that has a lot to do with his inability to use "No comment".

> SBF is quite obviously on the spectrum and I think that has a lot to do with his inability to use "No comment".

He may be, but going for the Lauri Love defense as your 'hail mary' may have been his only move left; they'll likely claim that this will be clear indication of his mental state in order to to get a lighter sentence or end up in a white-collar prison rather than a stint in Chino.

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

#252

Post by alexcabrera305 »

twobitshifter wrote: post #244
IncRnd wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are so many people who have obtained fortunes and not become drunk on that. The person who built a liquor store and grew into 20 stores across the city. People who started consulting companies. That immigrant family who scraped and scraped for decades while living above their restaurant. The list is endless, especially compared to the much shorter list of crypto criminals who are drunk on their illusory power a…

Liquor stores and consulting companies don't stack up to the “ great fortunes" gp was asking about.

That imaginary liquor store owner, even as an imaginary person, has more of a fortune than SBF at this point.

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

#253

Post by sillysaurusx »

bredren wrote: post #135
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…

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?

If the comparison point is SBF, then pg exceeds this bar. He doesn’t flaunt it, but it’s there.

Power is hard to measure, but in this context it seems reasonable to include lots of founders in the list. The Collison brothers, sama, and Brian Armstrong, to name a few. They’re all in charge of fortunes that normal people can only dream of.

I don’t think any of them have made critical errors. And it’s arguable whether Musk has, but time will tell.

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

#254

Post by datavirtue »

boeingUH60 wrote: post #182
noelsusman wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I almost called BS on your statistic, but a simple Google search shows that this year's midterm elections saw spending of up to $16.7 billion [1], so it appears to be true. As a non-US citizen, the amount of money in US politics shreds my mind...what are they even spending it on? Ads? Campaign outreaches? How much do these things cost? If it's how it is in my weird African country (Nigeria), I'll wager that most of t…

Consumerism. If you don't roll out a full blown corporate propaganda machine you aren't going anywhere.

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

#255

Post by lisper »

wmorein wrote: post #247
lisper wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not wrong, but on the other hand... the limit on direct contributions to federal campaigns is $5800. I can tell you from personal experience that this is enough to get a meeting with any senator or congressman except the most senior leadership (their price is about 10x more). So for about $3-4M/yr you can have every incumbent senator and representative on speed dial. They won't necessarily do your bidding, but…

Is this really true? How does it actually work? You donate $5800 then give them a call and ask for a meeting? I assumed that would take a lot more.

If you give them $5800 they will start calling you to ask for more money. If it's a Congressman they will usually call you themselves. If it's a Senator they might call you personally, or they might have their campaign manager call. But from there it's pretty easy to get a meeting if you want one.

You don't even have to give $5800 in most cases. $1k is plenty to get the attention of junior congressmen and even some less well known senators.

Just to put all this in perspective, it's actually possible to get meetings with these people without giving them money, especially if you're a constituent. But the more money you give, the higher you move up in the priority queue, and it doesn't take much to move to the front of the line.

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

#256

Post by datavirtue »

wmorein wrote: post #247
lisper wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not wrong, but on the other hand... the limit on direct contributions to federal campaigns is $5800. I can tell you from personal experience that this is enough to get a meeting with any senator or congressman except the most senior leadership (their price is about 10x more). So for about $3-4M/yr you can have every incumbent senator and representative on speed dial. They won't necessarily do your bidding, but…

Is this really true? How does it actually work? You donate $5800 then give them a call and ask for a meeting? I assumed that would take a lot more.

They will contact you.

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

#257

Post by dopamean »

tptacek wrote: post #126
rootusrootus wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I got downvoted yesterday for implying this. Is it true that her sentencing was "right in the middle?"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33963823

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

#258

Post by cycrutchfield »

NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #194
cycrutchfield wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is silly. You think the career DOJ prosecutors are looking at the list of victims and only deciding to prosecute if there is a rich person on the list?

Quoted post unavailable.

In the US, we can't just convict people because they lost people money. You need to prove criminal intent. Are you aware of any evidence demonstrating intent to commit fraud?

Not sure what the size of banks has to do with anything.

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

#259

Post by abakker »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #71
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…

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…

It does. His tweets were in the SEC's complaints this morning. Tweets AFTER the collapse.

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

#260

Post by yibg »

bredren wrote: post #135
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…

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?

Probably the hundreds of billionaires you’ve never heard of.
Post reply on HN