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

651–660 of 748 posts

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

#651

Post by favflam »

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?

There is a campaign finance charge.

The bankruptcy guy has to trace the money flows to political campaigns. Judging from his House testimony, this will take several months.

I suspect the pressure will be immense to return funds once the donations are officially declared dirty during the bankruptcy proceeding.

Also, if in fact SBF donated to both sides, then it will be quite simple for politicians to refund the money.

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

#652

Post by totalZero »

rkagerer wrote: post #648
jasonhansel wrote: post #119

The SEC's complaint in its civil case provides more information about the details of the accusations against him: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2022/comp-pr2022-2...

Does this strike anyone else as way too dramatic a narrative for a court document? Like it's written with a deep personal beef rather than sticking to the facts. Is that normal for civil complaints of this type? To be clear I'm not defending the guy, I just feel after reading the first few pages like I'm flipping through a cheap tabloid.

I noticed that too, and interpreted it as a sign of confidence. I can't imagine a regulatory group writing something so dramatic without them being sure it's a home-run case.

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

#653

Post by rkagerer »

breck wrote: post #462

Here is SBF's full statement: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenehrlich/2022/12/13/exclus... Worth a read

This part's pretty incorrigible: "I have potentially pertinent information concerning future opportunities and financing for FTX and its creditors."

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

#654

Post by wikfwikf »

richardwhiuk wrote: post #545
HPMOR wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He should not go to prison for life. Nobody should ever go to prison for life, for wasting money. Money is literally made up. Sure, opportunity cost is real, but seriously nobody should ever lose their life for money.

What happens if they money was someone else's means to pay for their health care? Money is made up - that doesn't mean it doesn't have consequences.

Hear me out, what if we allowed people to access health care regardless of who has how much money?

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

#655

Post by hackerlight »

jwmoz wrote: post #140
pseingatl wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this last interview, he talks about how several customers had negative balances on the platform due to margin trading. According to the SEC's civil suit, the only customer that had a negative balance was Alameda.

They blatantly were doing all sorts of illegal stuff with Alameda-they had god-mode (no liqs) and probably could see and snipe other peoples stops.

Source?

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

#656

Post by MrPatan »

flylib wrote: post #553
justinzollars wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was. They marked their entire investments to zero. A total loss.

SBF invested 200 million back into Sequoia funds as an LP, wasn't that big of a loss as they invested 214 million into FTX

Wasn't it 500 million?

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

#657

Post by MrPatan »

tjmc wrote: post #457
makestuff wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing a, you're still going to prison, but it will be for a few years instead of potentially your entire life.

Wasn't Alameda the entity responsible for losing most of the money? Seems wrong that you could get less than a double digit sentance for that - even if you roll over for the prosecution.

Losing money is legal. Stealing money is not. I have a hard time believing she didn't know where the money she was losing came from, though.

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

#658

Post by favflam »

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?

He was trying to influence government policy that directly affected his business. This is like a level or two below bribing the SEC and CFTC to look the other way while breaking regulations.

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

#659

Post by oblio »

wikfwikf wrote: post #654
richardwhiuk wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens if they money was someone else's means to pay for their health care? Money is made up - that doesn't mean it doesn't have consequences.

Hear me out, what if we allowed people to access health care regardless of who has how much money?

While your direct point is valid (for the US), you're missing the general point.

Money can be tied to life changing/life threatening events or situations in many more scenarios.

The archetypal scenarios are people losing college money, retirement savings, downpayments for their kid's apartments/houses, etc.

There are many ways in which money is very, very real.

Anyone who still clings to this "fiat" thesis is just detached from human reality.

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

#660

Post by gambiting »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #461
massysett wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 crypt…

> 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.” What’s the limit on that? Dollars or time? I would be beyond furious if I was expected to help make someone else whole.

>>I would be beyond furious if I was expected to help make someone else whole.

I mean, if you unknowingly buy stolen property, it will be just taken from you if the police finds out. I don't see how that's different.

Post reply on HN