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

431–440 of 748 posts

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

#431

Post by 0xB31B1B »

indigodaddy wrote: post #380
lr4444lr wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sure as hell wouldn’t laugh and put my fingers in my ears during a hearing. They are professional lawyers. Time to man up and not put your son at even more risk. Who knows how involved they’ve been in his shenanigans up til now, but it’s time to stop the madness..

Academic lawyers (his parents) are nothing like trial lawyers. Don’t expect them to have a good poker face.

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

#432

Post by andirk »

naniwaduni wrote: post #408
Yahivin wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably preparing for the year 9999 issue early.

Most systems don't have a Y10k issue: year numbers are variable-width already. Forcing a fixed-width 5-digit representation is creating a Y100k issue.

Never made sense how any software would consider the year value as _two characters_ when an integer works far better. There's even a 0 epoch date for crying out loud.

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

#433

Post by lern_too_spel »

roland35 wrote: post #389
lern_too_spel wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Still, HE WASN'T SUPPOSED TO LOAN THE CUSTOMER MONEY!! If he didn't know that than why was it in the terms of service that his company wrote?

Because he's stupid and didn't read anything the company's lawyers wrote. That's the whole defense. Saying he loaned money to another company because he didn't know any better works better as a stupidity defense to get a more lenient sentence than what coffeebeqn wrote.

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

#434

Post by andirk »

Macha wrote: post #144
okasaki wrote: post #111

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

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…

There's definitely a fax machine at some point in this document's journey.

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

#435

Post by anonporridge »

csomar wrote: post #427
anonporridge wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Historically children were the retirement plan They still are. It's just that the retirement plan has been socialized to the level of the nation state. The labor of the young takes care of the old. This is literally true in the case of social security which is funded by taxing current productive labor. This isn't necessarily bad, because it's the way it's always been. But it is something like a multi-generational p…

> This isn't necessarily bad, because it's the way it's always been. I'm not sure this sentence make any sense. The same could be said about slavery. Is slavery not necessarily bad because it's the way it's always been?

You're right, that sentence is bad.

Maybe I should have said it isn't obviously bad or some new, modern evil that we just invented. It's how human social groups that take care of their non productive elderly have always operated.

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

#436

Post by smeej »

Y_Y wrote: post #405
AmericanChopper wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During my first week in my first programming job I remember overhearing a senior engineer saying “don’t worry, there’s not another leap year for 2 years”. I was still working there on February 29, he wasn’t. It was a stressful day. My condolences go out to the engineers who will be working on January 1st 100000.

Surely by then we'll have had a powerful enough pope to rename the months at least once.

Not sure renaming the months is gonna help with the numbering of the years...

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

#437

Post by andirk »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #47
phire wrote: post #42

What are these campaign finance charges doing here? They seem to be completely unrelated to the FTX collapse, he is accused of bypassing campigan finance limits by donating under other people's names. Was he already under investigation for these, or was it something they discovered while investigating FTX?

> What are these campaign finance charges doing here? If police get a warrant to search your basement for heroin and find a pile of dead bodies, what do you think happens next?

I agree with hall0weener. Prosecutors often start with a whole bunch of charges and then hone in on the ones they feel are worthy of pursuing.

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

#439

Post by ilrwbwrkhv »

smeej wrote: post #438

When do you think we'll start seeing the politicians who received SBF's illegal campaign finance contributions insisting on returning them to FTX customers so as to be above suspicion or reproach?

I'm waiting for Sequoia to be put in jail.

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

#440

Post by chollida1 »

kragen wrote: post #334
chollida1 wrote: post #234

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

You are right about the year KYC came into effect, so good job!!

But that makes my point. As of 2002 Madoff had to have clear records of f who he redeemed money to.

When the bankruptcy trustee went after people who redeemed they only went back a few years and were able to use those KYC docs they had since 2002 to get the money back.

Post reply on HN