401–410 of 1001 posts
In under five hours! The jury was home in time for dinner. One question for legal people—why is there such a long gap between conviction and sentencing? In this case, the sentence won't be set until March of next year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's being debated in the bankruptcy court. Some creditors want to sell it off and others want to let it ride. Because this is crypto, some people want to issue a crypto token that represents claims on the estate.
i dont get why the shares in the investment isn't just divvied up to each individual investor, and let them make a choice to sell or not. And if there's transaction costs involved in selling small amounts, it could be aggregated before divving up, and those who wants to sell can collectively sell and save on costs.
[flagged]
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/30/ftx-billi...
Anyone know where to get good details? Specifically: do they know where the money went? If not, how did they prove intent (I assume they proved intent)? Edit: another thing I'm wondering is about jurisdiction, since most of this occurred offshore and didn't involve US customers.
1. To pay for Alameda's (Sam Bankman Fried's hedge fund) and FTX's loses
2. Invest in venture capital and make acquisitions
3. Political donations
4. Charitable donations
5. Luxury real-estate, boats, etc.
6. "loans" (i.e. transfer of stolen funds) to FTX's top executives
RE: Intent - Intent was easy to prove. All of Sam Bankman-Fried's fellow executives testified against him. In addition, Sam Bankman-Fried gave several interviews after FTX's collapse where he basically admitted he lied, fucked up, etc. Also, there was a lot of documents proving Sam Bankman-Fried lied. A good example is him saying FTX was fine on Twitter (X) and then it collapsed a few days later.
Here are some good FTX resources:
https://newsletter.mollywhite.net/s/the-ftx-files - Molley White did a good job covering the trial.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/united-states-attorney-... - This site contains the government's indictment against Sam Bankman-Fried.
https://restructuring.ra.kroll.com/FTX/Home-Index - A lot of the FTX bankruptcy documents are on this website.
> You’d think this MIT graduate would wise up, but he never did. The MIT campus has a major public road running through the middle of it, one of the busiest surface streets in the area. You don't have to stand there very long to see a crowd of students almost get hit by a car because they didn't look before they crossed the street. Point is, the old cliche is true, there really is such a thing as a person with a lot…
I'm curious how the sentencing goes, not only for SBF but those around him that took deals. In my limited view of US cases, it often seems prosecutors let off lightly anyone that will testify in return for their whale. Sometimes feels it's more symbolic justice that way than real.
There isnt much value in incarcerating additional people simply for the sake of punishment/revenge. The other individuals are unlikely to cause future harm.
How many years?
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/sam-bankman-fried-trial-verd...
I'm curious how the sentencing goes, not only for SBF but those around him that took deals. In my limited view of US cases, it often seems prosecutors let off lightly anyone that will testify in return for their whale. Sometimes feels it's more symbolic justice that way than real.
I'm not American, but it's my understanding that there's more scrutiny on prosecutors to "nail" and close cases due to the stupid double jeopardy rule. You lose the chance to convict a criminal, you lose your face and the chance to see him behind bars.
You really want the government to decide to re-arrest and re-try you indefinitely if you are acquitted of a crime?
The double jeopardy rule is not stupid.
> You’d think this MIT graduate would wise up, but he never did. The MIT campus has a major public road running through the middle of it, one of the busiest surface streets in the area. You don't have to stand there very long to see a crowd of students almost get hit by a car because they didn't look before they crossed the street. Point is, the old cliche is true, there really is such a thing as a person with a lot…
There's also a fact of human nature that smart people often don't understand: you can be the smartest person in the world and still be stupid under the right circumstances.