Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’ • Hacker News Board

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#121

Post by defen » Fri, Dec 23, 2022, 7:07 PM UTC

maxbond wrote: post #80

LgWoodenBadger wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An ankle monitor doesn't do anything to prevent you from fleeing, since it can be removed with any number of readily available tools.

I'm sure it is possible to defeat an ankle monitor in some way, but I really doubt simply knocking it off will work (not to say you can't knock out off, but that this will be detected & interpreted as an escape attempt). The police aren't stupid. Reading about it a bit, it seems many of them are simple to remove (not sure what kind of monitor SBF is wearing), but that indeed, it will be detected immediately.

Assuming someone is paying attention: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/erry-2018/12/9b5b1eff724150/...

Having someone pay attention is also all that you need to prevent the world's most wanted man from hanging himself in a federal prison in Manhattan.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#122

Post by moralestapia » Fri, Dec 23, 2022, 7:10 PM UTC

kodah wrote: post #46

moralestapia wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a weird argument you're making, >2 non-parent sureties to sign bonds in lesser amounts to be agreed to I'll be extremely generous and interpret that as two bonds worth 3.99...M each or the absolute max. value that is less than the 4M house. Would you extend a 250M credit to someone who offers you 11.8M in illiquid assets? Also, they happen to be the parents of one of the biggest fraudsters in recent years ... Co…

The court is not a creditor and your credit worthiness (thankfully for most folks) does not apply in court. The court is taking the promise of property (defined widely) should Sam fail to appear. This system, if the value is high enough, will keep him in the country to face justice. Phrased another way, we're about to find out if SBF is morally bankrupt enough to take away a huge portion of his parents assets as well…

>The court is not a creditor

Never said it was and the whole point of this is not whether they put some collateral or not.

The whole point is, how come a 250M bail can be secured with a 4M house? That is the whole thing that is driving everyone nuts.

Divide by a thousand and you may be able to get a better graps of it. Imagine you have a bail set for 250k and you tell the judge, well I have this really shitty used car which (may be) worth 4k, you can keep it, but also you can't take it from me now because well, it's my car :). You would stay in jail.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#123

Post by wmil » Fri, Dec 23, 2022, 7:11 PM UTC

georgeecollins wrote: post #6

For anyone who is not aware, in the US you sometimes have to put up bail money to get out of jail because you are a flight risk or there is a danger you will commit further crimes (assuming you are guilty which is at that point unproven). There are services that do this as a bond, called a bail bond. You typically don't put up the full amount, maybe 5-10%. The rest of the risk of you not showing up for your trial is…

To a certain degree that's inevitable.

Wealth buys comfort.

Constitutionally the purpose of bail is to ensure they don't flee and aren't a danger to the community while they await trial. It's not supposed to be a punishment since they haven't been convicted of anything yet.

So wealthy non-violent offenders should have the right to sit in lavish homes with an ankle monitor until they are actually convicted.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#124

Post by jfengel » Fri, Dec 23, 2022, 7:12 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #35

moralestapia wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a weird argument you're making, >2 non-parent sureties to sign bonds in lesser amounts to be agreed to I'll be extremely generous and interpret that as two bonds worth 3.99...M each or the absolute max. value that is less than the 4M house. Would you extend a 250M credit to someone who offers you 11.8M in illiquid assets? Also, they happen to be the parents of one of the biggest fraudsters in recent years ... Co…

> Would you extend a 250M credit to someone who offers you 11.8M in illiquid assets? The Court is not extending $250M of credit based on the collateral of the house. The Court is assessing that the combination of the $250M penalty, the security given in the form of the claim on the house, the particular full sureties on the hook, the additional partial sureties on the hook for a lesser amount, and the nonfinancial co…

Given that they know that they cannot collect the full $250M in the event of default, is there a reason that they picked that number? If they had called it a billion or a trillion or a squillion, what would have been different?

Or for that matter, if they had said that the penalty was $0, and that the securities and sureties were sufficient?

Presumably, they'll never find out, so perhaps it's moot. But I feel like there's a legal distinction or rule I'm missing.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#125

Post by jareklupinski » Fri, Dec 23, 2022, 7:12 PM UTC

linuxftw wrote: post #40

I'm surprised this guy hasn't already fled. How he even allowed himself to get arrested in the first place, crazy. If you lose billions of other people's money, no matter the circumstances, you should immediate proceed to a favorable jurisdiction.

I doubt there is any place left on Earth where you would be able to escape a motivated US prosecution, that also offers some relative comfort of life.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#126

Post by jmyeet » Fri, Dec 23, 2022, 7:15 PM UTC

lbwtaylor wrote: post #115

jmyeet wrote: post #64

I want to contrast SBF's treatment at the hands of the government to that of Carl Nelson. This is a name you probably don't know but let me summarize [1]. Nelson was an Amazon employee who worked on securing real estate deals for data centers. Based on an anonymous email sent to Jeff Bezos that Nelson was getting kickbacks on these deals where Amazon was being charged exorbitant leasing fees. In 2020, the FBI showed…

>law firm named Gibson Dunn (who have been at the center of many controversies) Gibson is one of the most respect law firms in the United States. It is certainly possible that they took some sort of nefarious action, but I find that unlikely, and see no suggestion of proof here. An article quotes this: >>Carleton Nelson denies the allegations. His lawyers have said in court that broad allowances for outside work in h…

> Gibson is one of the most respect law firms in the United States

Notable cases [1] includes:

> The firm is representing Chevron in its long-running, $27 billion environmental dispute in Ecuador

This is the case of Steven Donziger. I highly recommend you look into it because it's another travesty of justice. Donziger helped the Ecuadorian government secure a multi-billion judgement against Chevron for pollution. Chevron responded by finding a judge to appoint Gibson Dunn to engage in private criminal prosecution alleging fraud in the US for a case in Ecuador. Donziger spent years in home detention and had an $800,000 bond for misdemeanour in refusing to turn over his laptop to that court even though said laptop was clear work-product (and thus covered under attorney-client privilege) with the Ecuadorian case.

> The firm represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore

Okay...

Here is perhaps the most disturbing entry:

> Gibson Dunn is representing the plaintiffs in Haaland v. Brackeen pro bono in seeking to overturn the Indian Child Welfare Act.

The law firm isn't even paid on this one. Free of charge they are trying to end tribal sovereignty [2].

> Well, sounds to me like Nelson took the kickbacks

Why does it sound that way? No, seriously. Amazon has seemingly made false statements regarding money paid ($16.5m) and kickbacks received without providing any evidence. Any claims they have made would be documented in the affidavit, which both Amazon and the DoJ have fought to keep sealed.

And if that's the case why were no charges ever filed?

This is an opportunity for introspection here. Please, for your sake, ask yourself why your kneejerk reaction here is to side with Amazon.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibson_Dunn#Notable_cases

[2]: https://lakotalaw.org/news/2021-09-17/icwa-sovereignty

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#127

Post by hackinthebochs » Fri, Dec 23, 2022, 7:16 PM UTC

sirwhinesalot wrote: post #120

hackinthebochs wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why exactly is the government not seizing every asset he owns I find it utterly strange that people respond to injustice by asking why isn't more injustice being done, you know for equity?

It's not that they want the same injustice happening both ways, it's that injustice seems to only happen to poorer less well-connected folk. The justice system is not supposed to favour people based on connections and/or wealth. There's a reason people say crimes that are punished with a fine are laws that only apply to poor people.

Yes, and there are two ways we can respond to such a discrepancy. But the trend is that people seem more concerned about equity of punishment rather than improving the system for everyone. The words people use when calling out the bias do matter. Instead of asking why this rich person is getting special treatment, we should ask why aren't these poor people also being treated humanely.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#128

Post by plsbenice34 » Fri, Dec 23, 2022, 7:17 PM UTC

cageface wrote: post #59

maxbond wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like there's a group of people who want him to be obliterated and will be dissatisfied at every step if it isn't mounting his head on a pike. It's honestly one of the more disturbing parts of the story for me.

At least in my circle the people screaming the loudest for his head are the same people that are adamantly opposed to any government regulation of crypto. I think they're just mad that SBF spoiled their get rich quick scheme.

He was pushing for absurd regulations himself, such as KYC for front-ends of decentralised exchanges, so it is no surprise that they weren't his fan. More importantly, people who are in those groups tend to be aware how much he stinks of government corruption given his family ties, religion etc. - so it has always been assumed that he will get unfair treatment - and now it is seemingly turning out to go as expected. He is part of 'the establishment' that acted against the interests of the space. Regulations are also seen as only protecting the interests of the traditional financial system rather than actually protecting people; that's exactly how it seems to go so far

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#129

Post by hackinthebochs » Fri, Dec 23, 2022, 7:20 PM UTC

jmyeet wrote: post #117

hackinthebochs wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why exactly is the government not seizing every asset he owns I find it utterly strange that people respond to injustice by asking why isn't more injustice being done, you know for equity?

I clearly stated I don't support the legal basis for civil asset forfeiture, particularly as its used in the US, specifically without filing charges or that the asset is the defendant so the government can launch a civil action against an asset for being suspected of being the result of a criminal action by its alleged owner. It's even worse that law enforcement gets to keep the proceeds of seizing assets where there…

SBF's case is not analogous to a bank robber paying his bail out of the duffle bag used in the robbery. It is plausible that SBF had assets prior to misusing customer funds. The presumption of innocence should not just be a nice story we tell ourselves.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#130

Post by linuxftw » Fri, Dec 23, 2022, 7:20 PM UTC

jareklupinski wrote: post #125

linuxftw wrote: post #40

I'm surprised this guy hasn't already fled. How he even allowed himself to get arrested in the first place, crazy. If you lose billions of other people's money, no matter the circumstances, you should immediate proceed to a favorable jurisdiction.

I doubt there is any place left on Earth where you would be able to escape a motivated US prosecution, that also offers some relative comfort of life.

If he could have stashed even $10M he could live very comfortably in many parts of the world. Especially in the crypto world where it's much easier to move money across borders than it used to be, this should have been easy to do. SE Asia has to have at least one country that won't extradite.