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

Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

731–740 of 1001 posts

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#731

Post by meowface »

bmitc wrote: post #433
hintymad wrote: post #243

I was reading the trial report by Inner City Press. The AUSAs were incredibly thorough and strategic. The evidences were air-tight, the cross-examination was masterfully controlled with precision and incisiveness, and of course the closing argument was forceful. It was a great joy to read the report, as if I was watching an extended episode of The Good Fight. On the other hand, the defense was really weak, quite hand…

The defense really had no option. Several of Bankman-Fried's previous defense teams quit on him due to his behavior. Even in this trial, during a session with just the judge, the defense made an objection to a question, the judge sustained it, but Bankman-Fried answered anyways. His own defense team asked him where had he been this entire trial because the objection was sustained, you didn't have to answer that. Bank…

An odd question, but: why is he like this? Even from the start, before the criminal charges, his press tour was so bizarre. Is he just a delusional narcissist who thinks he can talk his way out of anything no matter what?

I feel like even very, very long into his prison sentence he's still going to try to talk your head off insisting it was all a big misunderstanding. And he's going to be denied parole because he's going to try the same thing with the parole board every time.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#732

Post by evan_ »

knorker wrote: post #627
hintymad wrote: post #243

I was reading the trial report by Inner City Press. The AUSAs were incredibly thorough and strategic. The evidences were air-tight, the cross-examination was masterfully controlled with precision and incisiveness, and of course the closing argument was forceful. It was a great joy to read the report, as if I was watching an extended episode of The Good Fight. On the other hand, the defense was really weak, quite hand…

Ah, the old "growing a business by buying your parents a mansion" investment.

I can be so much more effective at my job if I don’t have to worry about my parents living situation!

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#733

Post by _n_b_ »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #720
hintymad wrote: post #243

I was reading the trial report by Inner City Press. The AUSAs were incredibly thorough and strategic. The evidences were air-tight, the cross-examination was masterfully controlled with precision and incisiveness, and of course the closing argument was forceful. It was a great joy to read the report, as if I was watching an extended episode of The Good Fight. On the other hand, the defense was really weak, quite hand…

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the AUSA's performance here was not particularly impressive. Yes, they constructed an airtight case, but to do that, they handed out immunity deals like candy to all of SBF's co-conspirators. Sure, they got their guy, but it almost looks like they wanted to craft a narrative that puts all of the blame on him. Because of that, several other huge fraudsters here (eg Carol…

> several other huge fraudsters here (eg Caroline Ellison) get to walk

Caroline Ellison pleaded to two counts of wire fraud, two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit commodities fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Looking at the Federal Sentencing Guidelines[1], even accepting for her being a cooperating witness, she's very likely going to prison too for a fair amount of time. Just for (probably much) less time than SBF.

[1] Run your own calculations: https://www.sentencing.us

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#734

Post by jeffwask »

Tangurena2 wrote: post #715
vishnugupta wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair SBF convicted himself on a platter. Only he knows what made him think he'd get away by facing trial. Maybe he was just dumb, overconfident, ill-advised, or a combination of everything.

He is one of those people who think they can talk their way out of everything. Everything is not only negotiable, but the only possible "truth" is what they are saying right now (yesterday's "truth"? "You're remembering that incorrectly - I never said that!" ). I hated working for people like that, and I'd feel like I needed to take a shower after every meeting. If you only encounter them occasionally, a normal perso…

You can only hear you're a genius so many times before you start believing your own press.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#735

Post by Tangurena2 »

rsaxvc wrote: post #457
randycupertino wrote: post #320

I liked the article detailing how poorly he did on the stand: https://www.thefp.com/p/humiliating-cross-examination-sam-ba... “Did you say in private, ‘Fuck regulators?’ ” “Did you call some customers ‘dumb motherfuckers?’ ” “Did you fly to the Super Bowl in a private plane?” “Most FTX customers did not have a line of credit, correct?” “Do you deny that Alameda had a $65 billion line of credit?” And on, and on, and o…

> Under the circumstances, SBF’s wisest course would have been to just say yes—or yep—to her questions. Why did he take the stand at all?

I've worked for people like that. They truly believe that they can talk their way out of everything. If all you have is casual contact (contacts where they are in control of the time, place and agenda), they are very believable, very charismatic, very in-control; you will leave thinking that they are totally correct. If you are stuck meeting them every single day, rain or shine, good or bad, in sickness or in health, then you see behind the curtain. The lies build up until you feel that you have to wash the filth off your skin several times per day. Back then, the word "gaslighting" was not in common use. It would have made things far more understandable to me. It took me years to get over the feeling that I was the wrongness in the room. It was like being back in a cult again.

It might be easier for you to work from the viewpoint that SBF ran a cult. What sort of person starts and runs one? How do they treat possible recruits? How do they treat unbelievers? How do they treat neutral outsiders? Who is in the "inner circle"?

It is my belief that SBF felt he could negotiate his way out of trouble. That he just had to talk to the outsiders like he talked to his believers and then everything would be fine. The prosecutors kept showing to the jury what he actually said to his inner circle - and that sank SBF's case.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#736

Post by cornholio »

beedrillzzzzz wrote: post #729
pclmulqdq wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the AUSA's performance here was not particularly impressive. Yes, they constructed an airtight case, but to do that, they handed out immunity deals like candy to all of SBF's co-conspirators. Sure, they got their guy, but it almost looks like they wanted to craft a narrative that puts all of the blame on him. Because of that, several other huge fraudsters here (eg Carol…

Thats not true, Caroline and the main conspirators pled guilty and took plea deals, this is not immunity, they will still be sentenced to prison.

They handed Elison a plea deal waving all charges except criminal tax violations, which she's unlikely to be found guilty of.

However, she was the principal co-conspirator, presiding over a bucket shop that drained 7 billion directly out of the accounts of FTX. As a Stanford finance graduate with trading experience, it's ridiculous to claim she was not aware of the "backdoor" source of Alameda's liquidity and the massive loses they accrued gambling with the money of FTX customers.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#737

Post by biasedestimate »

I am as happy as anyone about arrogant half-smart crypto bros being called out as the frauds they are.

It is still sad that a young person's life is taken away today. I don't think any type of nonviolent crime should get anyone a life sentence, especially not in a prison system as inhumane as in the US.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#738

Post by varelse »

meowface wrote: post #731
bmitc wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The defense really had no option. Several of Bankman-Fried's previous defense teams quit on him due to his behavior. Even in this trial, during a session with just the judge, the defense made an objection to a question, the judge sustained it, but Bankman-Fried answered anyways. His own defense team asked him where had he been this entire trial because the objection was sustained, you didn't have to answer that. Bank…

An odd question, but: why is he like this? Even from the start, before the criminal charges, his press tour was so bizarre. Is he just a delusional narcissist who thinks he can talk his way out of anything no matter what? I feel like even very, very long into his prison sentence he's still going to try to talk your head off insisting it was all a big misunderstanding. And he's going to be denied parole because he's g…

[dead]

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#739

Post by lubesGordi »

Sequoia invested $200M in this guy. Has anyone looked at whether SBF could've done as much damage without that investment? Has anyone looked at if Sequoia did their due diligence? Seems like Sequoia could've seen red flags just from knowing Alameda existed. The potential abuse there was completely obvious.
Post reply on HN