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

661–670 of 748 posts

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

#661

Post by smeej »

me_again wrote: post #518
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?

Already started: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/11/29/beto-orourke-sam-ban... . Though I somehow doubt everyone will follow suit.

Does this really count though? They said returned it because they weren't expecting it, long before any of the shady news about the company came out.

I can respect that move in general, but it's hard to see it as a response to the scandal.

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

#662

Post by zeusk »

mikesabat wrote: post #497
Gustomaximus wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On this note I am curious if political organisations will be required to give back the donations he made. It seems the right thing if they were stolen funds. But being politicians I'm curious if it will be rules for thee and not for me.

On the All In podcast Chamath used a term 'Fraudulent Conveyance'. The idea is that if someone receives money from a fraudulent actor, the entity that received the money has to give it back. Madoff was mentioned somewhere in the comments and the story is that people that got funds out of the Madoff situation before it fell apart had to give the money back. We will see how it goes this time, but I suspect a lot of the…

Chamath is probably just as sly as SBF; Shy of committing fraud, he dumped horrid businesses on public via SPACs.

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

#663

Post by crispyambulance »

totalZero wrote: post #414
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…

Shkreli got hard time even though investors didn't lose money due to his fraud. There isn't a performance threshold beyond which fraud ceases to be criminal.

Shkreli did not get “hard time”, he got a basic, well-deserved prison sentence.

I find it distressing that folks keep pointing out that the investors did not lose money. Are they deliberately ignoring the fact that Shkreli had no right to take criminal risks with investor money?

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

#664

Post by otterley »

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.

Most well-drafted civil complaints are written this way. It’s hardly confined to complaints drafted by the Government.

Legal process is driven as much by narrative as it is by facts and allegations.

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

#665

Post by tchaffee »

massysett wrote: post #395
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 crypt…

> lighting money on fire

It's almost as if money is just paper and has little economic value. The same criticism you made of crypto.

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

#666

Post by gitfan86 »

panarky wrote: post #447
this_user wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

There was never "billions" of deposits in the first place. Someone mints a coin and pays FTX 5 million to list it. Then that person pays influencers and invests themselves to get the price of the coin to go up. Now on paper that coin is worth "100 million". But in reality only 8 million dollars has been spent.

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

#667

Post by otterley »

okasaki wrote: post #111

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

It’s not typed up on a typewriter, although it may appear that way. Back when I worked in a federal district court, we used WordPerfect on Windows to draft judicial documents using a standard template that looked much like this; I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re still using it today.

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

#668

Post by bambax »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #385
tasuki wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe he never was their favorite son anyway.

Oh I think it's the opposite.

I think they thought of him as the second coming of Jesus himself, and he felt he had to do extraordinary things to live up to that image (which of course is impossible).

I think he secretly hated it and that's why he trashed his own hypocrisy in some interviews, saying that the charity talks were all an act and not true.

And I also think that's a big part of his "I'm stupid / I fucked up" line of defense. Yes, he may think it helps his case (but is he actually that naïve?) But the main goal is to tell his parents "see, the genius you thought I was is actually a complete idiot, what do you make of that?!?"

I think he's happy to suffer if that makes his parents suffer more.

(Of course that's all speculation and pop' psychology and as such isn't worth the electrons it's typed in; but it's a possibility.)

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

#669

Post by kkielhofner »

woodpanel wrote: post #628
totalZero wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shkreli got hard time even though investors didn't lose money due to his fraud. There isn't a performance threshold beyond which fraud ceases to be criminal.

Shkreli is a good example of how well oiled justice runs if the defendant is politically indefensible. In the same vein the treatment that SBF got so far (eg getting invited as speaker on a NYT event that featured people such as Selenskyy) makes me fear it will be a much softer prosecution.

I don't think we'll ever see another defendant in these kinds of cases as universally hated by the public as Martin Shkreli. The transcripts from his jury selection made the news[0]. Some highlights:

"he disrespected the Wu-Tang Clan" (big problem in NYC, of course)

"he kind of looks like a dick"

"I would honestly, like, seriously like to go over there -"

[0] - https://www.spin.com/2017/08/martin-shkreli-jury-selection-t...

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

#670

Post by HWR_14 »

chezelenkoooo wrote: post #625
HWR_14 wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it really Tom Brady's responsibility to vet each and every one of his commercial offers? That seems unsustainable. He would have needed some pretty intimate knowledge of the crypto world along with the inner workings of FTX to know that it was a fraud. To me it seems like placing too much responsibility on people who shouldn't bear that responsibility.

This has nothing to do with knowing it was fraud or impending bankruptcy which has nothing to do with having a bankruptcy court claw back money given to you in preference of others. This is like Brady getting a bad check. So he doesn't get paid for acting. A lot of other people didn't get paid what they were owed.
Post reply on HN