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

The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 748 posts

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#321

Post by anigbrowl »

tptacek wrote: post #80
makestuff wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a quick google search (not promising this is 100% accurate, but I searched for sentencing minimums) 1) Wire fraud: 121-151 months 2) Securities fraud: 6-36 months base (there are multipliers apparently) 3) money laundering: 70 month average is all I could find 4) Campaign finance: seems to be more monetary based Not sure how a plea deal/severity of charges would change this though. Ex: when you are committing bi…

Fraud is a 2b1.1 crime, so the sentence scales with the "losses" to the victims; you can get +30 levels off that alone, which catapults the sentence into double digits.

It strikes me as a weakness in our system that this is keyed to the $ amount. You can defraud a person of modest means of $50,000 and wipe them out financially; you could defraud some rich people of $2 billion without it impacting them in the slightest. This strongly incentivizes preying on the weak.

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#323

Post by lern_too_spel »

coffeebeqn wrote: post #304
crmd wrote: post #117

Let’s see if his ‘I’m baby’ defense works in court.

You see your honor I simply didn’t know I wasn’t supposed to siphon customer funds from one of my businesses to another. Can I truly be charged for a crime if I pretend to be dumb after I get caught?

His stupidity defense claims that he thought it was a loan, and he didn't know what Alameda Research was doing with the loan.

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#324

Post by JumpCrisscross »

joegahona wrote: post #307
okasaki wrote: post #111

Is there some reason why this kind of stuff is typed up on a typwriter?

Yes! Also, why do they feel the need to do the "a/k/a SBF" after every mention of the guy's name? Say it the first time then just call him SBF thereafter. I think Typewriter Guy must be paid by the character. Another petty thing: I've never seek "a/k/a" with slashes like that before -- "aka" is sanctioned by Merriam-Webster, and "a.k.a." is also acceptable for constipated purists and The New Yorker.

> never seek "a/k/a" with slashes like that before

F/k/a is also common. I only see it in legal and compliance contexts.

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#325

Post by chaostheory »

anigbrowl wrote: post #314
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forbes published it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenehrlich/2022/12/13/exclus... He said "I fucked up" which would get C-SPAN in trouble with the FCC. It is a very defiant and entitled sounding statement though.

No it wouldn't. C-Span isn't broadcast for one thing, for a second it's newsworthy, and for a third they could just say/write 'I f**ed up' The US is so babyish about this stuff. One day people shout about free speech absolutism, another day they hold mock fainting fits over common swear words that virtually everyone uses. In other countries this would not merit anything more than an arched eyebrow on the part of a ne…

The US, like the EU, isn’t a monoculture.

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#326

Post by simplicio »

anigbrowl wrote: post #309
jpmattia wrote: post #16

> "did transmit and cause to be transmitted by wire, radio, and television communication" Note to self: Remember to use only free-space lightwave communications to avoid committing wire fraud. Edit: Removed "fiber" because it looks too much like a wire and avoid being busted by outside1234!

did transmit and cause to be transmitted I often wonder why lawyers cling to this archaic form of verbiage, when they could just write 'transmitted, and had others others transmit [...]'.

I assume if your trying to prove someone violated a law, it makes sense to use the exact phrasing in the law, rather then paraphrase and leave the defense some possible semantic wiggle room.

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#327

Post by anigbrowl »

politician wrote: post #316
anigbrowl wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

did transmit and cause to be transmitted I often wonder why lawyers cling to this archaic form of verbiage, when they could just write 'transmitted, and had others others transmit [...]'.

"The device transmitted on its own, my client didn't cause the transmission."

They could make that argument anyway. The semantic content is identical.

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#328

Post by CSMastermind »

hef19898 wrote: post #271
stevenwoo wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that they named the chat group channel for their executives (SBF, Caroline, others) "Wirefraud" is jawdropping.

Tell me they didn't...

They did, Caroline also made a Tumblr post that said something like, "When I add being feminine to my dating profile should I put it before or after the section on wire fraud?"

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#330

Post by [deleted] »

jpmattia wrote: post #16

> "did transmit and cause to be transmitted by wire, radio, and television communication" Note to self: Remember to use only free-space lightwave communications to avoid committing wire fraud. Edit: Removed "fiber" because it looks too much like a wire and avoid being busted by outside1234!

[deleted]
Post reply on HN