Live data from Hacker News

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

justice.gov

611–620 of 748 posts

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

#611
after reading about his parents' high level of involvement, i think they knew there were all sorts of illegal things going on, and decided to not ask too many questions to allow for plausible deniability.

but they gladly kept spending that money and spreading that influence.

and, to seemingly throw away your kid's future because you're so enthralled with finally being one of the true bigwigs around Stanford... smh.

he needed parents.

and the myriad people surrounding him for years during the theft and fraud -- who are now all Pikachu-faced that he could have been doing these dastardly things.

and maybe sbf will get his little brother sent to jail, too.

SBF wasn't paying attention to the SPAC people -- you gotta take yours off the top, like a politician (quoting dead prez) -- not just steal everyone's money, and _def_ don't steal from the rich -- i thought we all collectively learned these lessons.

if we killed SPACs _and_ crypto, where are all the scammers gonna go?

conspiracy. wire fraud. commodities fraud. securities fraud. money laundering. the Federales even threw in a campaign finance charge just for giggles.

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

#612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol. When Coindesk is bringing more nuanced news reporting than CNBC, you know things are whack.

They both make money by selling ad space and attracting eyeballs to that space, but the audience of Coindesk is going to be much more interested in the financial details, whereas the more general audience of CNBC is going to be less interested in getting the details of the story right, and more likely to read a story that is lightly sensationalized.

"less interested in getting the details of the story right" is exactly what is "whack" about media today.

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

#613
post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was that trial a bit politicized yu think? serious question

Not particularly. He had gained notoriety due to other behavior (raising drug prices to fund other drug research, his attitude during his Congressional testimony and media appearances, etc.), but it sounds like his fraud [or whatever he was specifically found guilty of] was very cut-and-dry against SEC and other relevant rules.

He certainly committed fraud, but it’s certainly unusual that he was prosecuted for it when nobody lost money. In fact, investors did well.

It’s hard not to feel like this is not a thing that would have been investigated had he not been a totally raging asshole.

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

#614
post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Seeing how thoroughly he convinced people that he had political influence We’ve gotten tot he point where we’ve gone way too far off the deep end when it comes to this narrative around political influence. the collective imagination seems to have risen to comic book level proportions. All people saw was SBF gave a bunch of money and thought, “he must have a ton of influence”. Meanwhile, in my state, he gave $11 mill…

> We’ve gotten tot he point where we’ve gone way too far off the deep end when it comes to this narrative around political influence. the collective imagination seems to have risen to comic book level proportions. What's particularly stupid is most of the time that people are going off about how some company or person gave a bunch of money and that is obviously why Congress passed the bill that company or person supp…

So why do they donate all that money?

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

#615
post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While Tom Brady's endorsement has little economic value, it was money paid to him. I believe a bankruptcy court can undo past transactions, so that cash might be recoverable.

They can’t give Tom Brady his time back.

Of the people stolen from, Tom Brady losing a day filming commercials is pretty low on the list of things I care about.

Like he got paid $X for his endorsement. I would prefer that money go to the people whose life savings were stolen.

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

#616
post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those who got out will be told they need to give back 50% (assuming you are right that that is how much was left).

Even non-US customers? How?

The US has an excellent record of recovering stolen money from most places you would want to live (and reciprocally of helping other countries)

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

#617
post #609
post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DPR is rotting for life, for contracting a hit on an entirely fictional person and mostly conducting a very upstanding market. I never thought that was fair, but US laws are US laws.

I'm not familiar with what you are referring to, however I would argue that attempted assassination losing custodial funds.

DPR == Dread Pirate Roberts == Ross Ulbricht (Silk Road operator)

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

#618
post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd imagine there's a huge problem in that FTX did not declare bankruptcy until the vast majority of their liquid assets had been removed by the bank run. If they had declared bankruptcy before the run, most people might have gotten out with a 50% haircut. Instead, after the run, those left over will get nothing and those who got out will got 100%.

Those who got out will be told they need to give back 50% (assuming you are right that that is how much was left).

How?

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

#619
post #618
post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those who got out will be told they need to give back 50% (assuming you are right that that is how much was left).

How?

Bankruptcy law allows for the clawback of preferential transfers. Any transfers within 90 days of bankruptcy are assumed to be preferential. Or transfers for a longer time to insiders. And that's without fraud. With fraud they can go back farther. Like, Madoff's investors who got out in time had to turn over a lot of cash.

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

#620
post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> burned through billions If Alameda lost the billions, then who won the billions? Who was on the other side of those trades?

Ever wondered where the money to make crypto go up was coming from?

I’m surprised bitcoin is holding up as well as it is
Post reply on HN