Yes she cooperated and pleaded early, but damn, she got off easy compared to SBF.
It turns out sentencing cares whether you’re cooperative and contrite or you stand by having done nothing wrong.
SEC obtains final consent judgments against former FTX and Alameda executives
11–20 of 102 posts
Re: SEC obtains final consent judgments against former FTX and Alameda executives
#12Yes she cooperated and pleaded early, but damn, she got off easy compared to SBF.
Eh, I am pretty sure Trump is gonna end up pardoning SBF. It just seems like the sort of thing that is going to happen.
Re: SEC obtains final consent judgments against former FTX and Alameda executives
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
100% Even if you "cooperate", that shouldn't be an 80-90% sentence reduction. She was part of the fraud, consciously, for years!
Even if we all agree this is true, you still have to think practically. If we don't give a big incentive to turn on your co-conspirators, no one will turn and you might not be able to convict any of them.
>Can someone think of the criminals?
SBF was toast with or without Ellison's testimony.
It should be the other way around. You get 10 years. You don't want to cooperate? Great! You get another 10.
Re: SEC obtains final consent judgments against former FTX and Alameda executives
#14> Without denying the Commission’s allegations, Ellison, Wang, and Singh consented to the entry of final judgments, subject to court approval, in which they agreed to be permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and to 5-year conduct-based injunctions. Ellison also cons…
> That’s a really light sentence for someone who defrauded people out of billions I don't excuse anything that she did, but didn't 98% of investors get everything back with interest?
I wanna say that was the FTX story, not Alameda.
Re: SEC obtains final consent judgments against former FTX and Alameda executives
#15> Without denying the Commission’s allegations, Ellison, Wang, and Singh consented to the entry of final judgments, subject to court approval, in which they agreed to be permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and to 5-year conduct-based injunctions. Ellison also cons…
> That’s a really light sentence for someone who defrauded people out of billions I don't excuse anything that she did, but didn't 98% of investors get everything back with interest?
They did, but not through any virtue or skill on her part. That was just the plain luck of Bitcoin happening to go way way up before the bankruptcy estate paid out using what it had, and the court that sentenced her couldn't know that would happen and if it somehow had, should not have taken it into account. You wouldn't advocate a lighter sentence for murder if the bullet had miraculously been struck by lightning on its way to the target's skull and thereby missed.
Re: SEC obtains final consent judgments against former FTX and Alameda executives
#16> Without denying the Commission’s allegations, Ellison, Wang, and Singh consented to the entry of final judgments, subject to court approval, in which they agreed to be permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and to 5-year conduct-based injunctions. Ellison also cons…
> That’s a really light sentence for someone who defrauded people out of billions I don't excuse anything that she did, but didn't 98% of investors get everything back with interest?
Criminal law deals with intent not with outcomes.
Hence why "attempted murder" is a thing.
Re: SEC obtains final consent judgments against former FTX and Alameda executives
#17> Without denying the Commission’s allegations, Ellison, Wang, and Singh consented to the entry of final judgments, subject to court approval, in which they agreed to be permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and to 5-year conduct-based injunctions. Ellison also cons…
> That’s a really light sentence for someone who defrauded people out of billions I don't excuse anything that she did, but didn't 98% of investors get everything back with interest?
Maybe, on paper, some day in the indeterminate future, and likely without interest.
For comparison, MtGox went tits up twelve years ago in 2014 and they're still figuring out repayments for its BTC holders, which is both a hell of a lot simpler than FTX's grab bag of own tokens etc and has gone up a zillion percent since 2014.
Re: SEC obtains final consent judgments against former FTX and Alameda executives
#18> Without denying the Commission’s allegations, Ellison, Wang, and Singh consented to the entry of final judgments, subject to court approval, in which they agreed to be permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and to 5-year conduct-based injunctions. Ellison also cons…
> That’s a really light sentence for someone who defrauded people out of billions I don't excuse anything that she did, but didn't 98% of investors get everything back with interest?
Only by accident of BTC's appreciation while the fraud+bankruptcy were underway. Not sure that should be a mitigating factor.
Re: SEC obtains final consent judgments against former FTX and Alameda executives
#19Future federal reserve chair Caroline Ellison.
Re: SEC obtains final consent judgments against former FTX and Alameda executives
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That’s a really light sentence for someone who defrauded people out of billions I don't excuse anything that she did, but didn't 98% of investors get everything back with interest?
They did, but not through any virtue or skill on her part. That was just the plain luck of Bitcoin happening to go way way up before the bankruptcy estate paid out using what it had, and the court that sentenced her couldn't know that would happen and if it somehow had, should not have taken it into account. You wouldn't advocate a lighter sentence for murder if the bullet had miraculously been struck by lightning on…
Well, actually you would, because that would change it from murder to attempted murder.