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

501–510 of 748 posts

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

#501

Post by SilasX »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #181
axus wrote: post #149

Was listening to C-SPAN, they said his written statement for the record of the hearing was very offensive. "I would like to state, under oath," and then two words they wouldn't repeat. Doing a Google search of "SBF Fuck You" shows he's already told regulators and his lawyers to go F themselves, I'm guessing he said the same to the US Congress.

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.

Maybe not! There was that case in 2003 where Bono of U2 said “fucking brilliant” when accepting an award, and the FCC ruled that it was not a violation, because it was not in the context of intercourse. But then later reversed itself.

https://www.rcfp.org/fcc-commissioners-find-bono-remark-inde...

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

#502

Post by sam345 »

ilrwbwrkhv wrote: post #439
smeej wrote: post #438

When do you think we'll start seeing the politicians who received SBF's illegal campaign finance contributions insisting on returning them to FTX customers so as to be above suspicion or reproach?

I'm waiting for Sequoia to be put in jail.

I'd be interested in the theory. Their investors aren't exactly mom and pop operations. But I do agree that their promotion of SBF was asinine though that's all clear to the world now. And I'm not in favor of criminalizing bad investments. Sets bad precedent and incentives.

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

#503

Post by ipaddr »

joeblubaugh wrote: post #469
paulpauper wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that is why VCs are diversified

I don’t mean a financial reckoning, I mean a reputational one. Why would you want to do business with such foolish people?

It is an advantage because taking money from stupid people is preferred

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

#504

Post by SoftTalker »

polygamous_bat wrote: post #396
baobabKoodaa wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe there's one set of lawyers who are good at defending innocent defendants and another set of lawyers good at defending guilty ones?

Not a lawyer, but two different high level policies for defense depending on whether your client is innocent or not makes sense to me. At the highest level, it may even come down to two classes of lawyers with expertise in each category.

Makes sense to me. One type of defense is focused on acquittal. The other is focused on getting the shortest sentence and/or smallest fines.

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

#505

Post by jacquesm »

anigbrowl wrote: post #386
chaostheory wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US doesn’t have a monopoly on hypocrisy either.

You want room 12A, next door.

Hehe, nice one.

I came to realize this when the head of the school our son went to called me at home to say that my son had used an inappropriate word in school. He wouldn't say what the word was, even when prompted several times, as though he was unable to utter it. Then finally he resorted to spelling out 'f u c k', so I said 'Oh, you mean 'fuck'' and he nearly lost it. I explained to him that my son learned pretty much all of his slang from his schoolmates since he'd only been in the country less than a year so probably the problem was on his end and left it at that. He never did call again...

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

#506

Post by nkozyra »

joeblubaugh wrote: post #469
paulpauper wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that is why VCs are diversified

I don’t mean a financial reckoning, I mean a reputational one. Why would you want to do business with such foolish people?

> Why would you want to do business with such foolish people?

On the other hand, I kind of want to pitch something to them now.

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

#507

Post by justinzollars »

joeblubaugh wrote: post #455

Is there going to be any reckoning for the VCs who poured money into this ridiculous business? I don’t see how you respect Sequoia’s judgement after this.

There was. They marked their entire investments to zero. A total loss.

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

#508

Post by throw_nbvc1234 »

chollida1 wrote: post #234
pseingatl wrote: post #127

Can 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…

Well the Madoff trustee's were able to see who received payouts from Madoff due to KYC rules. This allowed the trustee to go to people, most of whom were completely innocent, to ask the to give back some of the money they redeemed from Madoff. FTX on the other hand has very few KYC docs so the trustees are left with wallet addresses. Not sure how you contact a wallet address to ask for money back.

Wouldn't FTX-US be required to KYC all of their customers? I assumed that was the (part of) the reason why these exchanges had us and non us versions.

(edit links) https://help.ftx.com/hc/en-us/articles/360027668192-Individu...

https://help.ftx.us/hc/en-us/articles/360048666713-Account-T...

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

#509

Post by p1necone »

yabones wrote: post #67
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!

RFC-1149 is the only safe way to commit fraud. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1149

Make sure you set the evil bit to true too.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3514

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

#510

Post by majormajor »

justinzollars wrote: post #507
joeblubaugh wrote: post #455

Is there going to be any reckoning for the VCs who poured money into this ridiculous business? I don’t see how you respect Sequoia’s judgement after this.

There was. They marked their entire investments to zero. A total loss.

Are people going to trust them with their money to let them raise future funds?

If so: why?

Post reply on HN