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

311–320 of 748 posts

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

#311

Post by dang »

zombiwoof wrote: post #133
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 a self entitled, privileged prick. He has no concept of infallibility. He is smart and rich so he thinks he will be given a pass

Ok, but can you please stop posting unsubstantive/flamey comments to HN? You've done that repeatedly, unfortunately.

You may not owe ex-billionaire fraud defendants better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

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

#312

Post by anigbrowl »

kasey_junk wrote: post #75
yourapostasy wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was standard federal prosecution practice to put up huge potential sentencing numbers, then negotiate downwards in hopes of securing a swift process, and therefore the initial indictment-implied sentencing number carries very little context?

It’s not even a negotiation tactic, the defendants lawyers know the sentencing guidelines. It’s a news release tactic.

Annoyingly, news outlets just recycle the hype. Tired of everything being exaggerated for attention in modern society, this is one reason faith in social institutions is on the wane.

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

#313

Post by [deleted] »

phphphphp wrote: post #138
pseingatl wrote: post #127

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 re…

I’d be absolutely shocked if more than 25% can be recovered. They spent multi-billions on venture investments that were not just high-risk due to their early stage nature but also inextricably linked to ftx by way of the cryptocurrency market as a whole and thus about as undiversified as humanly possible. There’s a few of their investments that have value and value could be recovered through sales but almost all of t…

[deleted]

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

#314

Post by anigbrowl »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #181
axus wrote: post #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.

Forbes published it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenehrlich/2022/12/13/exclus... He said "I fucked up" which would get C-SPAN in trouble with the FCC. It is a very defiant and entitled sounding statement though.

No it wouldn't. C-Span isn't broadcast for one thing, for a second it's newsworthy, and for a third they could just say/write 'I f**ed up'

The US is so babyish about this stuff. One day people shout about free speech absolutism, another day they hold mock fainting fits over common swear words that virtually everyone uses. In other countries this would not merit anything more than an arched eyebrow on the part of a newsreader.

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

#315

Post by smolder »

soyiuz wrote: post #174

I've seen a bunch of his interviews now and his message is pretty controlled, actually. It all boils down to: (a) I don't know, wasn't aware, and (b) I messed up / lost focus. These appearances seem to play a therapeutic (instead of legal or financial) role for SBF (bad idea, obviously). Yesterday (12/12) he was still talking about returning in a "senior executive role" to help in the bankruptcy. He is also convinced…

Every indication is that he's lying through his teeth about being unaware.

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

#316

Post by politician »

anigbrowl wrote: post #309
jpmattia wrote: post #16

> "did transmit and cause to be transmitted by wire, radio, and television communication" Note to self: Remember to use only free-space lightwave communications to avoid committing wire fraud. Edit: Removed "fiber" because it looks too much like a wire and avoid being busted by outside1234!

did transmit and cause to be transmitted I often wonder why lawyers cling to this archaic form of verbiage, when they could just write 'transmitted, and had others others transmit [...]'.

"The device transmitted on its own, my client didn't cause the transmission."

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

#317

Post by smegger001 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #63
danso wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised this classic video is 10+ years old but has only 18M views. edit: Saw that the professor, James Duane [0], has his own Wikipedia page, almost entirely on the popularity of the Youtube lecture. Even more surprising, his Talk page seems to be free of debate over Duane's notability. Pretty impressive for a single videoed lecture! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Duane_(professor)

Should be shown in elementary schools as part of the curriculum.

I was shown it in high-school by a particularly good social studies teacher.

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

#318

Post by anigbrowl »

bmitc wrote: post #128

Is there a reason why they did this before and not after he appeared in the previously upcoming congressional hearing?

A good question. Rep Ocasio-Cortez, questioning the current CEO of FTX in committee, seemed to suggest that there was more going on behind the scenes than was admitted to in the firm's legal filings of yesterday. I haven't been following the case closely so I'm not sure what her line of inquiry was aimed at.

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

#319

Post by JumpCrisscross »

soyiuz wrote: post #174

I've seen a bunch of his interviews now and his message is pretty controlled, actually. It all boils down to: (a) I don't know, wasn't aware, and (b) I messed up / lost focus. These appearances seem to play a therapeutic (instead of legal or financial) role for SBF (bad idea, obviously). Yesterday (12/12) he was still talking about returning in a "senior executive role" to help in the bankruptcy. He is also convinced…

“If you attract customers and investors by saying that you have good risk management, and then you lose their money, and then you say ‘oh sorry we had bad risk management,’ that is not a defense against fraud charges! That is a confession!”

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-12-13/how-to...

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

#320

Post by millzlane »

joegahona wrote: post #307
okasaki wrote: post #111

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

Yes! Also, why do they feel the need to do the "a/k/a SBF" after every mention of the guy's name? Say it the first time then just call him SBF thereafter. I think Typewriter Guy must be paid by the character. Another petty thing: I've never seek "a/k/a" with slashes like that before -- "aka" is sanctioned by Merriam-Webster, and "a.k.a." is also acceptable for constipated purists and The New Yorker.

Probably an 80's kid. I remember writing a/k/a like that and I distinctly remember running essays through a character counter and adding filler words.
Post reply on HN