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

391–400 of 748 posts

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

#391

Post by [deleted] »

NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #185
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?

Yes, you've likely never heard of them: https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/ I have no clue who these people are: Hank & Doug Meijer Tom & Judy Love Stewart & Lynda Resnick Andrew & Peggy Cherng In fact the list of ones I recognize is tiny compared to the whole list. Some of them don't even have pictures, but they're all billionaires. And yes, I consider even a single billion to be a great, real fortune. Mo…

[deleted]

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

#393

Post by H8crilA »

lr4444lr wrote: post #376
indigodaddy wrote: post #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?

They watched their own flesh and blood son transition with breakneck speed from a high rolling billionaire who hobnobbed with society's elites to facing spending the best years of his life in prison, a disgrace to his family and their legacy. How do you think you'd cope with that psychological ordeal?

The act never ends. Surely, in a decade or two or three, SBF will be looking all innocent from behind bars and still unable to open his mouth without incriminating himself.

I wonder how many others will be charged. This will be more difficult than walking all over this guy, and I seriously doubt he is alone in all of this.

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

#394

Post by ajross »

politician wrote: post #322

It's interesting that the US gets priority on prosecution here when the losses internationally are far in excess of those of US creditors.

There's no "priority" at work. The DoJ just filed charges first. There's no reason any other jurisdiction couldn't file its own case simultaneously, though obviously they're unlikely to get him extradited while he's standing trial.

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

#395

Post by massysett »

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…

The problem is opportunity cost. People invested in Madoff to grow their money. So if I invest $100 in Madoff and ten years later they say “we recovered $90, congrats,” yeah that’s better than nothing. But if I had put that into a legitimate investment, maybe I’d have $180.

Other folks got money out of Madoff during his scam years, and the trustee says “I’m taking that money back to pay back others.”

So much of crypto went to things that now have little economic value. Burnt out computer hardware, enormous electricity, Tom Brady’s endorsement deal. At least with the housing bubble we got some buildings (I live in a bubble neighborhood.) Crypto is like lighting money on fire. The sooner this scam is over, the better.

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

#396

Post by polygamous_bat »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #374
germinalphrase wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that the kind of high end lawyer you get when other high end lawyers say ‘No’?

Or maybe there's one set of lawyers who are good at defending innocent defendants and another set of lawyers good at defending guilty ones?

Not a lawyer, but two different high level policies for defense depending on whether your client is innocent or not makes sense to me. At the highest level, it may even come down to two classes of lawyers with expertise in each category.

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

#398

Post by this_user »

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…

People have already looked into this, and the claims on FTX' debt were valued at 5c on the dollar. Alameda has burned through billions, and most of what was left were illiquid shitcoins and other worthless junk. Madoff, at least, was dealing with real assets.

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

#399

Post by time_to_smile »

tasuki wrote: post #382
brewdad wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they already got their millions secured away in some untouchable country and don't really care what happens at this point.

They were already quite well off, now their son is in trouble. "My son is going to prison but I have secured my millions so it's fine" is generally not a thing.

I'm glad you have great parents, but I think you vastly underestimate how much many parents do not care about their children, and will sacrifice them for their own well being.

Most caring parents would aggressively caution their children from heading down the path SBF went, especially if they're smart, educated parents.

There are no "boy geniuses" out there like many lead SBF to believe he was, people from prestigious backgrounds know this better than anyone. There are some really smart people out there, but anyone being propped up the way SBF was is being setup.

I don't have any sympathy for SBF, but a lot people whose names we'll never know where more than happy to set him up to think he was himself an unstoppable genius because that helped them sell a product and they know that it will also help focus all the blame.

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

#400

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

cjensen wrote: post #142
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes it has made a difference. In white-collar crimes, prosecutors have to prove intent. That means they have to somehow find evidence that the defendant meant to do various things improperly. SBF has literally given interviews where he has stated the required intent for some of the crimes. As an unrelated aside, note that this is also a way of punishing lower classes of people more severely. If you shoplift, prosecut…

> SBF has literally given interviews where he has stated the required intent for some of the crimes.

Do you have examples of what you are referring to? As you say, intent matters here. The vast majority of quotes I've seen from his interviews are along the lines of "I suck at accounting", but that he didn't intend to steal funds.

But again, the other reason I don't think it matters is that there were plenty of other recorded examples that do show intent, e.g. cases where SBF was lying on Twitter specifically to try to cover his tracks: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33632472

Post reply on HN