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

Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang are cooperating in the criminal case against SBF

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 338 posts

Re: Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang are cooperating in the criminal case against SBF

#291

Post by landemva »

danielfoster wrote: post #222
fardo wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is a good chance SBF will be released on bail so he does not have to spend time in detention in NYC. The charges against him are all nonviolent crimes I don’t agree with this theory, as I think it’s rather likely SBF will be viewed as a flight risk. • His heavy involvement in the cryptocurrency space makes it likely he has significant moveable digital cash reserves that cannot be easily seized and which would…

It’s hard to know for sure but I agree. SBF might catch a break for looking innocent and young, but this really is a textbook example of when bail should not be granted. Bail may happen if he ends up cooperating. I’m very interested to see if the parents are charged.

The IRS likely can get the parents on gifts of property and travel. I guess the parents will walk, though.

Re: Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang are cooperating in the criminal case against SBF

#292

Post by dragonwriter »

blamazon wrote: post #268
DebtDeflation wrote: post #251

The bigger story is that in their complaint, the SEC is declaring FTT to be an investment contract and therefore a "security". https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sec-calls-ftt-exchange-token-... Since all exchange native tokens more or less work the same way, that would mean they are all securities. That would include BNB. If this holds, the crypto exchange game is over.

This is just a jurisdictional turf war. SEC calls them securities and CFTC calls them commodities. The courts will decide. Re FTX via CFTC: "The complaint charges all three defendants with fraud and material misrepresentations in connection with the sale of digital commodities in interstate commerce." https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8638-22

> This is just a jurisdictional turf war. SEC calls them securities and CFTC calls them commodities.

Doesn't seen to be a turf war; SEC seems to be saying the FTT token and direct investment in FTX were securities (and thus, decieving investors in those waa securities fraud), CFTC is saying that the bulk of the crypto traded on FTX were commodities (and thus, decieving people trading in them was commodities fraud), and DoJ—which has included both in the criminal charges as well as each regulatory agency filing civil charges for offenses with their respective civil area of jurisdiction—agrees with both.

Re: Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang are cooperating in the criminal case against SBF

#293

Post by mrep »

agentultra wrote: post #46
EGreg wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically, it seems that earn to give isnt the best way. Billionaires like Jeff Bezos got that way by building a very successful organization that helps a lot of consumers (being able to do so thanks yo wage slavery until automation started kicking in). Since then, it has grown a lot and Bezos has to do nothing to reap the benefits but keep his shares. But just because Bezos built one great thing that helps so many c…

There are no such things as benevolent billionaires. There’s a problem with a society that enables billionaires to exist at all. It shouldn’t even be possible but we’re here for a lot of reasons. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cu6EbELZ6I

Why? J. K. Rowling created the best selling book series of all time and hundreds of millions of people bought and loved her books to read them. What is problematic about that? Should she have just given the last 6 books away for free because she already created too much value for other people writing the first harry potter?

Re: Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang are cooperating in the criminal case against SBF

#294

Post by salawat »

dannyw wrote: post #274
zarzavat wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not saying that nefarious things weren't happening, but keeping lines of communication open between exchanges is reasonable and is not per se evidence of wrongdoing. For example, if someone steals a bunch of coins from exchange A then you would want exchanges B and C to be able to made aware of that ASAP so that they can stop the movement of those coins.

Or if there's a network split or issue, you ideally want exchanges to take similar actions.

....We have names for that. That's collusion & cartelry. It's also anti-competitive af.

Re: Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang are cooperating in the criminal case against SBF

#295

Post by salawat »

aldanor wrote: post #277
Gareth321 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I am in a C-level position again I would definetly avoid a situation where I was C-level in name only if only to avoid the legal risk. How much are they paying, exactly?

Barely fits in an int32.

It doesn't matter. Keep your nose clean. Do not enable shady people to do shady things using you as a plausibly deniable umbrella. No matter how profitable.

Re: Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang are cooperating in the criminal case against SBF

#296

Post by vkou »

random314 wrote: post #154
jcampbell1 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She was found not guilty of defrauding patients. He was guilty on all accounts.

It's difficult for me to see how Balwani was defrauding patients but Holmes wasn't.

His work was in operations, hers was in investor schmoozing.

Re: Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang are cooperating in the criminal case against SBF

#297

Post by vkou »

bushbaba wrote: post #149
jcampbell1 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is she will get 10. 30 for the crimes, less 10 for being a first time offender and not the ring leader and less 10 for cooperation and contrition.

And gets out after 5 years for “good behavior”.

The most you can get off for good behavior in the federal system is 15%.

I expect between 0 and 3 years.

Re: Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang are cooperating in the criminal case against SBF

#298

Post by salawat »

shapefrog wrote: post #203
lordfrito wrote: post #41

Any ideas why these prosecutions are moving forward so fast? Usually this stuff takes forever as evidence is carefully gathered. Curious if anyone has any insights here.

Despite the smoke and mirrors it is actually an incredibly basic crime to unravel. In the modern era of email / slack / whatever - every smoking gun piece of evidence is a ctrl-f away. SBF is publicly testifying and pointing to where the bodies are buried, FTX the company is cooperating and co-conspirators are cooperating.

You'll be surprised how ephemeral things can be, and many more controversial white collar communication conventions develop to avoid the "on paper" evidence trail.

Half of keeping your nose clean and keeping people accountable is cornering them into reading/writing something. This is a great way to make yourself nobody's friend, but also a good weapon for halting something by refusing to do it without getting it in writing first.

Re: Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang are cooperating in the criminal case against SBF

#299

Post by vkou »

stinkythrowaway wrote: post #181

Could Caroline have reported prior to collapse and earned a buttload of cash from the SEC for whistleblowing?

You can only make money from a share of the fine that gets collected, in the case of an insolvent firm, I doubt that fine and your share will be at the front of the list of creditors.

Re: Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang are cooperating in the criminal case against SBF

#300

Post by vkou »

HWR_14 wrote: post #284
TotoHorner wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do they not know how little power college professors wield outside academia Are you joking? That's absolutely not the case for Economics (the context we're talking about here). Why don't you look up the backgrounds of the people on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors? Or, look up who drafts major legislation? If you watch MIT's Econ 101 course on YouTube, the professor who teaches it was actually the guy behind…

I looked up the backgrounds of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. And? A few were professors for a few years and maybe one made it a major job. The former head of the SEC was also a partner at Goldman Sachs, where he co-chaired their Finance committee overseeing their internal controls, spent 4 years in an undersecretary position in the treasury department, joined the Senate staff and helped write Sarbanes-Oxley…

He also forgets that a large part of the federal reserve is, essentially, a research institution. That does research, publishes and critiques papers, and then takes those papers into account when drafting policy.
Post reply on HN