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

Sam Bankman-Fried loses bid to appeal against fraud conviction in FTX case

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 77 posts

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried loses bid to appeal against fraud conviction in FTX case

#41

Post by kelnos »

SoftTalker wrote: post #39
vessenes wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump reportedly was disinterested in SBF money. During his tenure, SBF leaned left - with Clinton and others as paid speakers for events.

Trump himself supported Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2008.

Not sure how that's relevant. Trump does whatever Trump thinks is good for Trump. I'm sure his support of Clinton back then made sense to him, as did shifting far right several years later.

If he thinks accepting money from SBF will be good for him, he'll do it. If not, he won't. I suspect SBF is going to be left out in the cold, though, so Trump can say he's tough on white-collar crime, while pardoning the Binance guy and so many other rich fraudsters.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried loses bid to appeal against fraud conviction in FTX case

#42

Post by ben4next »

ourmandave wrote: post #38
watersb wrote: post #32

He will hold a Cabinet-level position before 2029.

Trump already chose the Binance money-launderer Zhao which was a competitor of FTX. But the administration loves frauds, so maybe if Bankman can come up with a bribe.

[flagged]

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried loses bid to appeal against fraud conviction in FTX case

#43

Post by kelnos »

Lerc wrote: post #29
Analemma_ wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You SBF defenders have such a weird view of how the law works. If I embezzle money from my company and then bet it all on black in Vegas, intending to give it back if I win, your implication here is equivalent to saying I did commit a crime if the wheel comes up red, but I did not commit any crime if it comes up black.

Not a SBF defender, and at no point am I suggesting that a crime was not committed. I am saying that the crime is different to theft. Would you say that a misuse of funds with zero chance of the rightful owner losing their money is a less serious crime than a misuse of funds with a 50% or 100% chance of losing their money. I think it is, and penalties should be proportionate. That is a principle that I hold independe…

> Would you say that a misuse of funds with zero chance of the rightful owner losing their money is a less serious crime than a misuse of funds with a 50% or 100% chance of losing their money.

No, because the crime is the same either way. The crime is "misuse of funds", full stop.

If recklessly using those funds is also a crime, then there should be an extra charge tacked on, which would presumably increase penalties on conviction.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried loses bid to appeal against fraud conviction in FTX case

#44

Post by CPLX »

Lerc wrote: post #27
benzible wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not how any of this works. He was convicted of fraud, and fraud was committed the moment he transferred the funds to Alameda. That he placed some bets that worked out, like his Anthropic investment, doesn't negate the crime any more than if I robbed a bank, placed a winning bet with it and returned the funds with interest.

I'm saying a Fraud conviction is not the same a stealing. I'm completely ok with a conviction for fraud, provided that the conviction and sentencing is based upon that fraud. I would characterise robbing a bank, placing a bet and returning the funds as theft. However if you entrusted me with $500 and I gambled and paid you back when you wanted the $500, I would not say that is theft. If I had promised not to gamble,…

You can characterize things however you want. But "theft" and "fraud" are extensively defined concepts in caselaw. Fraud, specifically, is legally defined quite differently than what most people think the word means in common usage and your example here does not have much relationship to it.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried loses bid to appeal against fraud conviction in FTX case

#45

Post by momoschili »

ben4next wrote: post #42
ourmandave wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump already chose the Binance money-launderer Zhao which was a competitor of FTX. But the administration loves frauds, so maybe if Bankman can come up with a bribe.

[flagged]

he ain't a left winger. right winger cosplaying

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried loses bid to appeal against fraud conviction in FTX case

#46

Post by dyauspitr »

ben4next wrote: post #42
ourmandave wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump already chose the Binance money-launderer Zhao which was a competitor of FTX. But the administration loves frauds, so maybe if Bankman can come up with a bribe.

[flagged]

Crime is only okay if you’re on the right. It’s like in India, politicians with criminal backgrounds switch parties to the right. It’s called the washing machine.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried loses bid to appeal against fraud conviction in FTX case

#47

Post by SoftTalker »

Lerc wrote: post #29
Analemma_ wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You SBF defenders have such a weird view of how the law works. If I embezzle money from my company and then bet it all on black in Vegas, intending to give it back if I win, your implication here is equivalent to saying I did commit a crime if the wheel comes up red, but I did not commit any crime if it comes up black.

Not a SBF defender, and at no point am I suggesting that a crime was not committed. I am saying that the crime is different to theft. Would you say that a misuse of funds with zero chance of the rightful owner losing their money is a less serious crime than a misuse of funds with a 50% or 100% chance of losing their money. I think it is, and penalties should be proportionate. That is a principle that I hold independe…

Paying back a victim, or "making them whole" is part of required restitution, but it's not adequate as a deterrence. If all I have to do is pay back my victims, there's very little disincentive to keep trying my schemes until I "win."

Loss of freedom is ultimately what will reform a criminal, if reform is possible.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried loses bid to appeal against fraud conviction in FTX case

#48

Post by ben4next »

momoschili wrote: post #45
ben4next wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

he ain't a left winger. right winger cosplaying

"Sam Bankman-Fried was one of the largest financial supporters of the Democratic Party and left-wing campaigns. He publicly cultivated a center-left persona and aligned his philanthropic efforts with progressive ideologies."

Src: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/geor...

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried loses bid to appeal against fraud conviction in FTX case

#49

Post by CPLX »

FireBeyond wrote: post #33
Lerc wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a SBF defender, and at no point am I suggesting that a crime was not committed. I am saying that the crime is different to theft. Would you say that a misuse of funds with zero chance of the rightful owner losing their money is a less serious crime than a misuse of funds with a 50% or 100% chance of losing their money. I think it is, and penalties should be proportionate. That is a principle that I hold independe…

I would disagree, solely because one or more of the following reasons: 1. the person taking the money had no guarantee that the money, or some of it, would not be lost. 2. it wasn't their intention to give all or some of it back to its rightful owners. 3. the fact that some of it could repay some of the rightful owner's was often a matter of luck, not intent (there is some overlap between 1 and 3). SBF hits all three…

Intent isn't necessarily an element required to prove fraud. Recklessness can be sufficient. Also to the extent intent is required intent to deceive is sufficient, ie the intent to cause someone to rely on a false statement, even if there's no intent to harm because you're convinced your fraudulent scheme will ultimately lead to success.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried loses bid to appeal against fraud conviction in FTX case

#50

Post by SoftTalker »

kelnos wrote: post #43
Lerc wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a SBF defender, and at no point am I suggesting that a crime was not committed. I am saying that the crime is different to theft. Would you say that a misuse of funds with zero chance of the rightful owner losing their money is a less serious crime than a misuse of funds with a 50% or 100% chance of losing their money. I think it is, and penalties should be proportionate. That is a principle that I hold independe…

> Would you say that a misuse of funds with zero chance of the rightful owner losing their money is a less serious crime than a misuse of funds with a 50% or 100% chance of losing their money. No, because the crime is the same either way. The crime is "misuse of funds", full stop. If recklessly using those funds is also a crime, then there should be an extra charge tacked on, which would presumably increase penalties…

Agreed. I've seen local officials convicted of misusing an offical credit card for groceries and other personal purchases, even though they paid everything back and there was no "loss" to the taxpayers. But they were still misusing public credit for personal benefit.

Of course it was a pretty clear pattern of usage over time, not a one-time thing that could be explained as accidental.

Post reply on HN