Live data from Hacker News

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

justice.gov

361–370 of 748 posts

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

#361

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

This was my exact thoughts too! surely human beings from the 21st century could have improved on this. However I'm also pretty sure that lawyers have found a loophole to prevent their jobs from being automated, if you just make using technology illegal/"not to standard" then they can keep billing $500 per hour to use a typewriter

You think lawyers personally are the ones writing documents?

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

#362
post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Federal courts accept (and often have rules requiring-by-default, for most purpose) electronic submission.

And you didn’t feel the need to mention that in your reply to the parent comment, that introduced this assumption that I was building off of?

Electronic submission still involves uploading a PDF, which has to follow the court's rules for layout of printed pages.

It just means it the file gets directly added into the case's docket, rather than having to be manually scanned in by the clerks' office.

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

#363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me they didn't...

They did, Caroline also made a Tumblr post that said something like, "When I add being feminine to my dating profile should I put it before or after the section on wire fraud?"

I refuse to believe this. No one uses Tumblr.

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

#364
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.

Maybe this guy isn't as smart as he thinks he is.

That's pretty obvious by now I think. Still, he makes just about every other thief look like a bumbling idiot.

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

#365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see your honor I simply didn’t know I wasn’t supposed to siphon customer funds from one of my businesses to another. Can I truly be charged for a crime if I pretend to be dumb after I get caught?

His stupidity defense claims that he thought it was a loan, and he didn't know what Alameda Research was doing with the loan.

does that even make sense? If it was a loan against his customer's assets then the assets would still be there, and the exchange would simply be broke. If the funds are gone then it doesn't matter what for. He had no business lending his customers money away, he ran an exchange.

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

#366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some possibilities are Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates ex-wives (though, maybe they don’t count as amasssing their fortunes), um…

Rockefeller avoided the press entirely (to his detriment really) until well after he'd retired.

No post body was provided.

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

#367
post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

madoff operated from 01960 to 02008 kyc is from 02002

His Ponzi scheme started in 1991. Ponzi schemes are exponential, so more than 90% of the volume was after 2002. What's with the leading zeros?

the leading zeros are a sign that the poster is unusually short-sighted and only concerned about the next 98,000 years or so in their fixed-size date representations.

before i get tarred and feathered, i'm just going for a cheap ironic laugh here, no offense intended! :) more seriously, i sorta doubt humanity is going to be around long enough to care, and if we are, the odds of some apocalypse resetting our calendars aren't zero.

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

#368

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.

Seems to be standard in those type of documents, e.g. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-sdny/legacy...

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

#369
post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the Madoff trustee's were able to see who received payouts from Madoff due to KYC rules. This allowed the trustee to go to people, most of whom were completely innocent, to ask the to give back some of the money they redeemed from Madoff. FTX on the other hand has very few KYC docs so the trustees are left with wallet addresses. Not sure how you contact a wallet address to ask for money back.

madoff operated from 01960 to 02008 kyc is from 02002

I've learned to identify a kragen post from the preceding zero.

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

#370
From https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/13/sam-bankman-fried-denied-bai... :

“Bankman-Fried's parents were animated during the proceeding, at times laughing or putting their fingers in their ears, according to Coindesk.”

… what in the world.. I guess they really think they are going to somehow get him out of this.. how do they not understand that this type of behavior is not in any way helpful to him?

Post reply on HN