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

51–60 of 77 posts

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

#51

Post by davyAdewoyin »

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,…

Except SBF didn't gamble away the money (still a criminal offence if he did); he spent it on lavish goods and apartments, with a lot of political donations. The very definition of fraud is deception, misappropriation, and loss to the users, all of which did happen.

In between placing a bet and returning the funds, the customer's funds were totally non-existent hence the loss to the user. That things later worked out after some years does not take away the misappropriation and that there was no actual money where it was meant to be at that moment, hence a fraud.

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

#52

Post by SoftTalker »

kelnos wrote: post #41
SoftTalker wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

I was responding to the implication that SBF's association with the Clintons was a reason he would not get any favors from Trump. Trump has had a lot of associates on the D side of the ballot over the years, pretty much unavoidable if you're a wheeler-dealer in New York.

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

#53

Post by Lerc »

CPLX wrote: post #44
Lerc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well I have only seen media reports alleging theft, such as the article linked, they don't necessarily have to conform to legal definitions. A cynical person might suggest that perhaps media coverage deliberately chooses between colloquial, legal, and scientific definitions at will depending on the narrative they would like to create.

Was there ever a charge of theft in the legal sense filed in court?

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

#56

Post by Lerc »

SoftTalker wrote: post #47
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…

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.

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

I don't believe that is correct. In fact there's pretty good research to suggest that custodial sentences inrcease recidivism. This does not really apply to the SBF case, but I shall elaborate for the general case.

There are far more burglars in their 20's than in their 50's. The predominant characteristic amongst people over the age of 50 being convicted of burglary is previous jail time for burglary.

Research has shown the single most reliable way to reform a criminal is to let them get older without going to jail, and to a lesser extent gaining a criminal record. People are far more often criminals by circumstance than by nature.

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

#57

Post by Lerc »

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…

I agree on your points of what matters.

I disagree that this was shown in the SBF case. In fact, it seems much of the case was based on the fact that these points were not pertinent to the charges he faced. Which is also likely why his appeal failed. The argument that he was disallowed from making would have spoken to those issues. If it had have been relevant to the charges, he should have been allowed to make the argument.

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

#58

Post by whynotmaybe »

GolfPopper wrote: post #36
3stacks wrote: post #6

Scam Bankman-Fraud is just one of the few highly publicised cases they will use to pretend they are actually serious about tackling these issues. Wake me when someone gets prosecuted for front-running Axios' "Iran deal is imminent" articles in the oil market.

He committed the one crime you can't buy your way out of: scamming the ruling finance class.

"You kill a whale, you'll get the greens, you'll get Greenpeace, you'll get Commander Cousteau on your back! But decimate a school of sardines, I like to tell you that you will be helped to can them!"

From the 1992 movie man bites dog.

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

#59

Post by randycupertino »

ben4next wrote: post #48
momoschili wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

He did that for PR. He stated he also secretly donated to the right.

> SBF claims he gave tens of millions in untraceable donations to Republicans

> Although federal election receipts show that Bankman-Fried donated almost exclusively to Democrats, he claimed on a November phone call with YouTuber Tiffany Fong that he donated an equal amount to Republicans and Democrats.

> “All my Republican donations were dark,” he said, referring to political donations that are not publicly disclosed in FEC filings. “The reason was not for regulatory reasons, it’s because reporters freak the f—k out if you donate to Republicans. They’re all super liberal, and I didn’t want to have that fight.”

> Given that he donated nearly $40 million to Democrats in the 2022 election cycle—and he admitted to giving an equal amount to Republicans—his total political contributions may have actually been around $80 million.

https://time.com/6241262/sam-bankman-fried-political-donatio...

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

#60

Post by forinti »

root-parent wrote: post #26
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.

Proof you can graduate from MIT and still be completely dumb.

I know people with doctorates who can't organise their lives. Being a good student does not make you smart in all aspects of your life.
Post reply on HN