Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

coindesk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 157 posts

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#71

Post by purpleflame1257 »

texasbigdata wrote: post #20
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they happen to be the parents of one of the biggest fraudsters in recent years Evidence seems to be building that, if they weren’t complicit, they at least benefited from his fraud.

Arguably their careers are now both collectively and irreversibly ruined. Like the Nobel prize winner that invented some major form of fertilizer that turned out to be a nazi

Assuming you are talking about Haber, you couldn't be more wrong. He was actually a German Jew (convert to Lutheranism) who was forced out of his position when then Nazis came to power than died en route to Mandatory Palestine in 1934.

He discovered the Haber process around 1911, which was well before WWII and it was intended for fertilizer only. Eventually people realized that mass ammonia production was very helpful for chemical warfare, and many (including French nobel winners like Grignard) engaged in it.

The Zyklon B synthesis is a red herring.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#72

Post by LgWoodenBadger »

maxbond wrote: post #30
loeg wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and we can use a bond to ensure he'll appear That is really the crux of the matter, and where people are (reasonably) disagreeing with you. Does a $4M bond (from his parents' assets, not his) and a $246M IOU really ensure SBF will show up in court rather than fleeing?

What's the reasoning why it wouldn't, and why are we forgetting that he's also wearing an ankle monitor?

An ankle monitor doesn't do anything to prevent you from fleeing, since it can be removed with any number of readily available tools.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#73

Post by lazyasciiart »

moralestapia wrote: post #8
nkurz wrote: post #2

I think this article is "directionally correct", but wrong (or at least misleading) about some key details. > Instead, Bankman-Fried’s parents promised to pledge their Palo Alto, California, home as collateral. The Palo Alto home is rumored to be worth $4 million. And that is the full extent of the collateral pledged to guarantee the $250 million bond. No other collateral was posted or promised. The first couple sent…

What a weird argument you're making, >2 non-parent sureties to sign bonds in lesser amounts to be agreed to I'll be extremely generous and interpret that as two bonds worth 3.99...M each or the absolute max. value that is less than the 4M house. Would you extend a 250M credit to someone who offers you 11.8M in illiquid assets? Also, they happen to be the parents of one of the biggest fraudsters in recent years ... Co…

Well, if I get to put ankle monitors on you, put you under house arrest, confiscate your passport and send you to jail if you don’t make payments on time…creditworthiness might not be the main factor in my decision.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#74

Post by maxbond »

fanso99 wrote: post #53
maxbond wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's been charged, there's a mountain of evidence against him, and he's facing trial. That's what my expectations were. I don't think see a need to crank every step of the process up to 11. He's on a conveyor belt leading to a meat grinder.

People are upset that he is getting special treatment. Again. He doesn't deserve it.

Is he getting special treatment or do people not have detailed knowledge of how the criminal justice system operates and so are objecting to any perceived leniency at every step?

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#75

Post by nkurz »

fanso99 wrote: post #69
maxbond wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, people who commit street level crimes should be given the same grace he's receiving. Denying bail because we think this guy is extra guilty (as opposed to, say, because he has a history of domestic abuse, and releasing him could put people at risk) would be cruel and unusual, because it would be discretionary.

The comment you are replying to did not say that he should be denied bail. Only that the rules should apply to him too. 10% is the most common requirement, he didn't meet it.

Where are you getting that "10% is the most common requirement"? I think you may be confusing the common _non-refundable_ amount charged by private bail bondsmen for much smaller bails with an actual court requirement for collateral. Is there a published standard you could point to that shows the amount of collateral typically required by US courts for bails of this size?

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#76

Post by dragonwriter »

nkurz wrote: post #54
dragonwriter wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which is to say, at least according to the published agreement, it is not true that "no other collateral was posted or agreed to". This is wrong, a signed surety bond is not collateral, its a binding commitment to liability. Security/collateral for that liability is a separate thing, abd the only security provided is the house. OTOH, federal law allows fully unsecured , personal bond of the accused if the jidge thi…

> This is wrong, a signed surety bond is not collateral, its a binding commitment to liability. Security/collateral for that liability is a separate thing, abd the only security provided is the house. Thanks for the detail. I wasn't sure if the "bonds in lesser amounts" were clearly just signed promises to pay, or might also include additional property bonds. It's the "lesser amounts" that confuses me. Does this mean…

> this would seem to imply that the court has decided that Sam and his parents have non-tainted assets worth more than $250M,

What I think it actually implies is that the surety given is a condition described by 18 USC § 3142(c)(1)(B)(xiv) and not 18 USC § 3142(c)(1)(B)(xii), and that people forget that (i)-(xiii) are examples of options, but do not limit the discretion provided by (xiv).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3142

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#77

Post by z3c0 »

fanso99 wrote: post #53
maxbond wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's been charged, there's a mountain of evidence against him, and he's facing trial. That's what my expectations were. I don't think see a need to crank every step of the process up to 11. He's on a conveyor belt leading to a meat grinder.

People are upset that he is getting special treatment. Again. He doesn't deserve it.

That really makes me wonder if these people have ever followed a rich person's trial before. They all get special treatment. They even get special incarceration.

Do any of them deserve it?

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#78

Post by anonymoushn »

ethanbond wrote: post #37
BobbyJo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? He did plenty more harm to plenty more people than many others who had to wait in jail for their trial. I think it's perfectly rational to be upset that someone who destroyed billions in wealth is treated more kindly by the justice system than than people who've done far less damage.

Did he destroy billions in wealth? Seems to me that he made chart go up for no reason and everyone was perfectly happy with that, and when chart went down for the same reasons (i.e. fraud/no legitimate reason) then everyone is upset about it. If people are upset about lesser offenses getting handled more aggressively, they should spend some time lobbying for lesser offenses to get handled less aggressively.

He stole like 10 billion dollars from his customers. Not sure how much of it he managed to subsequently destroy vs. successfully convey to other people, but does that matter?

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#79

Post by bryan0 »

maxbond wrote: post #55
itslennysfault wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he doesn't. If he was some random drug dealer that couldn't make bail he'd wait in jail for trial. The same rules should apply to him. Put up $25m (10%) or wait in jail. The bail amount was set at $250m because he is a substantial flight risk. Sitting in jail awaiting trial is not cruel or unusual. It's extremely common.

No, people who commit street level crimes should be given the same grace he's receiving. Denying bail because we think this guy is extra guilty (as opposed to, say, because he has a history of domestic abuse, and releasing him could put people at risk) would be cruel and unusual, because it would be discretionary.

Parent is not saying to keep him in jail because he’s “extra guilty.” They’re saying keep him in jail because he can’t pay bail. Basically treat him like everyone else.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#80

Post by maxbond »

LgWoodenBadger wrote: post #72
maxbond wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the reasoning why it wouldn't, and why are we forgetting that he's also wearing an ankle monitor?

An ankle monitor doesn't do anything to prevent you from fleeing, since it can be removed with any number of readily available tools.

I'm sure it is possible to defeat an ankle monitor in some way, but I really doubt simply knocking it off will work (not to say you can't knock out off, but that this will be detected & interpreted as an escape attempt). The police aren't stupid.

Reading about it a bit, it seems many of them are simple to remove (not sure what kind of monitor SBF is wearing), but that indeed, it will be detected immediately.

Post reply on HN