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

671–680 of 748 posts

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

#671

Post by kkielhofner »

Scoundreller wrote: post #620
lmm wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't pretend to fully understand markets but movement on BTC, etc with all of these developments is just further proof to me there is no connection between any of these coins and reality.

As another example, when Ethereum successfully moved to proof of stake without a hitch (an ultimately impressive and challenging development) the price actually went down.

I don't understand anything in this space.

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

#672

Post by Cass »

oblio wrote: post #647
Scoundreller wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I wouldn’t, but at least a billion people live somewhere happily out of US extra-jurisdiction.

Do you have a list with those places? Google isn't helping much.

I assume they're referring to the over a billion people living in China. Whether China is a place you'd want to live depends entirely on your personal cirumstances, of course.

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

#673

Post by SentientAtom »

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…

They need to freeze the crypto holdings until the next bull run.

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

#675

Post by pibechorro »

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…

Your bubble neighborhood likely cut down acres of wild land and trees unecessarily. We are all worst of for it.

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

#676

Post by 3327 »

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.

No post body was provided.

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

#677

Post by kkielhofner »

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.

The United States Department of Justice effectively has a 99.6% conviction rate[0]. As the article states most of this comes from pleas but in cases like this (Theranos, etc) they'll go to trial and almost always be found guilty anyway. That's an impressive stat and they want to keep it. With a conviction rate like that an indictment is practically a guarantee that anyone named in it will go to prison.

They also have an incredible amount of law and leverage in their favor. For example, another tactic is using statutes like "false or misleading statements"[1]. As that article tells it they'll often navigate suspects towards making statements investigators know to be false and then come back at a later interview and let them know they already have them on something that can get them five years in prison. There have been famous examples of wealthy and sophisticated people (Martha Stewart, Dennis Hastert, etc) getting charged under that statute when all else fails. Basically, if they want to get you they will get you.

All of this is pretty well known and I'm not surprised in the least the rest of the world is happy to sit back and watch the DOJ "do what it does" and put people in prison.

[0] - https://www.doarlaw.com/blog/2021/04/what-you-should-know-ab...

[1] - https://www.iannfriedman.com/blog/2019/april/federal-charges...

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

#679

Post by kkielhofner »

pliftkl wrote: post #46
andrewmutz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an officer testified in support of you about what he witnessed, why would that be hearsay?

If you tell a police officer that you did a crime, then your words are admissible as evidence against you. If you tell a police officer that you did not commit a crime, you can't have the police officer testify in your defense that you told him that you did not commit the crime. Witnessing things is a completely different matter.

Talking to the "regular" police and talking to a federal investigator are two completely different things. At the federal level they have "false or misleading statements"[0] which is a felony with a five year max. People have been convicted and done prison time on this alone based on nothing other than the notes and testimony from a federal investigator. At the state level probably the best they have is "obstruction of justice"[1] which requires things like physically interfering with the police or destroying evidence and even those actions have lesser penalties than "false or misleading statements".

I have a friend who is a federal criminal investigator and his advice when/if the feds show up is to say nothing other than "Do you have a business card? Someone will be in touch." and get a lawyer ASAP.

[0] - https://www.iannfriedman.com/blog/2019/april/federal-charges...

[1] - https://www.pallegarlawfirm.com/obstructing-justice-in-flori...

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

#680

Post by themitigating »

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.

Elizabeth Holmes?
Post reply on HN