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

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

coindesk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 157 posts

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

#61

Post by ameister14 »

maxbond wrote: post #18
rwmj wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no constitutional right - people accused of murder are not (often) released on bail. The 8th Amendment only applies to bail amounts when bail is granted. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excessive_Bail_Clause#Preventi...

He has a constitutional protection from cruel and unusual punishment. If there's no reason to believe he's dangerous to society, and he's presumed innocent, and we can use a bond to ensure he'll appear, then there's no reason to hold him.

technically he has a protection from punishment, period, without due process of law.

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

#62

Post by dragonwriter »

loeg wrote: post #45
dragonwriter wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which is to say, at least according to the published agreement, it is not true that "no other collateral was posted or agreed to". This is wrong, a signed surety bond is not collateral, its a binding commitment to liability. Security/collateral for that liability is a separate thing, abd the only security provided is the house. OTOH, federal law allows fully unsecured , personal bond of the accused if the jidge thi…

Extending a large unsecured personal bond to a fraudster seems pretty useless and I think laypeople can recognize that.

> Extending a large unsecured personal bond to a fraudster seems pretty useless and I think laypeople can recognize that.

Almost like there is a reason this is partially secured, not personal (there are additional sureties), and comes with extensive non-financial conditions.

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

#63

Post by wmf »

gbronner wrote: post #14

Can SBF's parents house be sold on the open market? I was under the impression that you could only sell on-campus Stanford houses to other Stanford affiliated people?

An illiquid asset marked to market you say?

But seriously, there are probably enough people willing to buy that house.

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

#64

Post by jmyeet »

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 up and seized (through civil forfeiture) the bank accounts and assets of Nelson, his wife, several associates and even his lawyers. What prompted this? It came to light later that Amazon's lawyers from a law firm named Gibson Dunn (who have been at the center of many controversies)met with the Department of Justice hundreds of times to get this outcome.

It turns out that the only way Amazon could get out of a bad deal was for someone to be charged with a felony. The one alleged here was deprivation of "honest services". It was on this basis the the FBI seized Nelson's assets. In doing so, Amazon falsely claimed they'd paid $16.5 million they had not paid.

After nearly 2 years and no charges being filed, the government returned a portion of the seized funds. It is alleged that Amazon made false represetnations (an actual crime) to the government and these formed the basis for the warrant to seize these assets. That warrant remains under seal. It's also alleged that Amazon lied about the leases they signed.

So, no charges filed (let alone a conviction) and all these assets seized under civil asset forfeiture, a regime that I personally think should be deemed unconstitutional as a clear Fourth Amendment violation. But alas, it remains the law of the land.

SBF has cleared stolen customer assets as CEO of FTX. Why exactly is the government not seizing every asset he owns, his parents own and his FTX associates own as here there is actually a good case that they are the proceeds of a crime?

[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-03-15/the-st...

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

#65

Post by fanso99 »

gbronner wrote: post #14

Can SBF's parents house be sold on the open market? I was under the impression that you could only sell on-campus Stanford houses to other Stanford affiliated people?

I would guess that there are so many Stanford-affiliated people and so few properties on the market that this fact is not a limiting one.

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

#66

Post by gemstones »

dragonwriter wrote: post #39
loeg wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just clearly not a $250M bond. Almost nothing to do with SBF himself. I mean, also, fuck the guy, but the prosecutors claiming this is a 250M bond are just being absurd. This is a $4M bond, or maybe up to $12M depending on the assets pledged by the lesser guarantors. It's a far cry from $250M claimed by the prosecution.

> It's just clearly not a $250M bond. It is, in fact, a $250M bail bond, people just have a very wrong mental model, based on a bad generalization from an already slightly wrong mental model of the terms when an arms-length bail agent provides surety to the court for the defendant, of what that means.

I get that this is technically not how bail works - it just turns out that how bail works is stupid.

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

#67

Post by toomuchtodo »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #57
maxbond wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay. So he's on house arrest, wearing an ankle monitor, and if he flees his parents will never recover financially. What's the problem?

> on house arrest, wearing an ankle monitor, and if he flees his parents will never recover financially. What's the problem? That it’s not a jail. Jails are tougher to get out of than ankle bracelets. His parents are going to spend the rest of their lives fighting civil lawsuits, if not criminal cases of their own. Losing their home is a matter of time. It is difficult to even say to what degree their plight matters…

What do you believe their motivation is for contributing towards his bail based on the consequences they're facing? It seems somewhat strange they didn't say, "nah, lock him up until trial" considering the sword of Damocles above their estate and past performance of the accused.

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

#68

Post by shdhjdj »

texasbigdata wrote: post #20
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they happen to be the parents of one of the biggest fraudsters in recent years Evidence seems to be building that, if they weren’t complicit, they at least benefited from his fraud.

Arguably their careers are now both collectively and irreversibly ruined. Like the Nobel prize winner that invented some major form of fertilizer that turned out to be a nazi

Fritz Haber was not a Nazi. In fact, he was Jewish, and was forced to leave Germany when the Nazis came to power. His involvement with chemical weapons was during WW1; he died in 1934.

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

#69

Post by fanso99 »

maxbond wrote: post #55
itslennysfault wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he doesn't. If he was some random drug dealer that couldn't make bail he'd wait in jail for trial. The same rules should apply to him. Put up $25m (10%) or wait in jail. The bail amount was set at $250m because he is a substantial flight risk. Sitting in jail awaiting trial is not cruel or unusual. It's extremely common.

No, people who commit street level crimes should be given the same grace he's receiving. Denying bail because we think this guy is extra guilty (as opposed to, say, because he has a history of domestic abuse, and releasing him could put people at risk) would be cruel and unusual, because it would be discretionary.

The comment you are replying to did not say that he should be denied bail. Only that the rules should apply to him too. 10% is the most common requirement, he didn't meet it.
Post reply on HN