SBF is no Muhammad Ali.
The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]
371–380 of 388 posts
Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]
#372Can we discus recovery? The Madoff trustee was able to recover something like 90% of the Madoff Ponzi. Alameda and FTX's real estate purchases have value, as do their VC investments, purchases of bank stock, etc. In other words, it's not all gone. My understanding is that even some of the political contributions can be clawed back. FTX's purchases of IOU's (i.e., crypto) that declined in value are not likely to be re…
The problem is opportunity cost. People invested in Madoff to grow their money. So if I invest $100 in Madoff and ten years later they say “we recovered $90, congrats,” yeah that’s better than nothing. But if I had put that into a legitimate investment, maybe I’d have $180. Other folks got money out of Madoff during his scam years, and the trustee says “I’m taking that money back to pay back others.” So much of crypt…
Your bubble neighborhood likely cut down acres of wild land and trees unecessarily. We are all worst of for it.
Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is opportunity cost. People invested in Madoff to grow their money. So if I invest $100 in Madoff and ten years later they say “we recovered $90, congrats,” yeah that’s better than nothing. But if I had put that into a legitimate investment, maybe I’d have $180. Other folks got money out of Madoff during his scam years, and the trustee says “I’m taking that money back to pay back others.” So much of crypt…
Shkreli got hard time even though investors didn't lose money due to his fraud. There isn't a performance threshold beyond which fraud ceases to be criminal.
No post body was provided.
Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]
#374It's interesting that the US gets priority on prosecution here when the losses internationally are far in excess of those of US creditors.
The United States Department of Justice effectively has a 99.6% conviction rate[0]. As the article states most of this comes from pleas but in cases like this (Theranos, etc) they'll go to trial and almost always be found guilty anyway. That's an impressive stat and they want to keep it. With a conviction rate like that an indictment is practically a guarantee that anyone named in it will go to prison.
They also have an incredible amount of law and leverage in their favor. For example, another tactic is using statutes like "false or misleading statements"[1]. As that article tells it they'll often navigate suspects towards making statements investigators know to be false and then come back at a later interview and let them know they already have them on something that can get them five years in prison. There have been famous examples of wealthy and sophisticated people (Martha Stewart, Dennis Hastert, etc) getting charged under that statute when all else fails. Basically, if they want to get you they will get you.
All of this is pretty well known and I'm not surprised in the least the rest of the world is happy to sit back and watch the DOJ "do what it does" and put people in prison.
[0] - https://www.doarlaw.com/blog/2021/04/what-you-should-know-ab...
[1] - https://www.iannfriedman.com/blog/2019/april/federal-charges...
Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]
#375It’s beautiful seeing a justice system work so quickly
Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]
#376I'll restrict my comment to condemning the empty cynicism behind Elon Musk's tweet [1] that, because SBF donated to Democrats, there would be no investigation of SBF, much less an indictment.
And AFAIK Elon Musk hasn't publicly admitted that he was wrong.
Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]
#377Here is SBF's full statement: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenehrlich/2022/12/13/exclus... Worth a read
This part's pretty incorrigible: "I have potentially pertinent information concerning future opportunities and financing for FTX and its creditors."
> This part's pretty incorrigible
Sorry I don't understand. Can you elaborate?
Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe they already got their millions secured away in some untouchable country and don't really care what happens at this point.
They were already quite well off, now their son is in trouble. "My son is going to prison but I have secured my millions so it's fine" is generally not a thing.
The number of self-absorbed parents who care about their children only as accessories to their own lives, to be embraced when useful and ignored when inconvenient, is staggering.
Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]
#379I'll restrict my comment to condemning the empty cynicism behind Elon Musk's tweet [1] that, because SBF donated to Democrats, there would be no investigation of SBF, much less an indictment. And AFAIK Elon Musk hasn't publicly admitted that he was wrong. [1] https://nitter.net/elonmusk/status/1591822387267665921
Yeah, such a silly take to imagine that politicians would go down with a blatant fraudster like that just because he gave them a couple of mil for their candidacies. A big part of being a skillful politician is knowing not to tie yourself to corpses like SBF.