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

631–640 of 748 posts

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

#631

Post by throwawaylinux »

germinalphrase wrote: post #371
Melting_Harps wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let’s see if his ‘I’m baby’ defense works in court. It was a foolish move to open his mouth at all on the matter, let alone go on every podcast that invited him and took every interview to spout his self-incriminating non-sense and riling up the Media and the public's ire in the process. If that was his goal, he has terribly failed to establish anything that suggests it will work Worst yet... is his choice for chie…

Is that the kind of high end lawyer you get when other high end lawyers say ‘No’?

Yeah he went to Michael Avenatti first but he had a scheduling conflict.

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

#632

Post by throwawaylinux »

ivraatiems wrote: post #61
dilawar wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today there was an article about his parents in nytimes. I think at at least one of them is professor of law. And both parents seems to be involved with his company. I wonder if he didnt get any advice from them about not talking?! Maybe he knew that he is done legally and there is no downside to talking to public.

There's a pathology amongst wealthy people where they think that the law doesn't apply to them, period, and are simply shocked when it does. Some other recent examples of this include the lawyer Michael Avenatti going to jail for decades for stealing from his clients, and everything that has ever happened to Donald Trump. (In my experience as a white person it is mostly other white people who think this, but I don't…

Check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

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

#633

Post by once_inc »

marssaxman wrote: post #604
breck wrote: post #462

Here is SBF's full statement: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenehrlich/2022/12/13/exclus... Worth a read

The aggressively useless chin mask in the lead photo sends a certain message. I wonder what he means by saying that "the password to my LinkedIn account still hasn't been returned". Is he claiming that the "Chapter 11 team" has taken over his account and changed his password? Is that... normal ?

They probably changed his keepass or bitwarden main password, which effectively locks anyone using those products with generated passwords from entering into anything.

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

#634

Post by once_inc »

breck wrote: post #462

Here is SBF's full statement: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenehrlich/2022/12/13/exclus... Worth a read

To my knowledge, he has yet to give a reasonable answer why Alameda was using FTX customer funds. He can't, because that should never have happened, and is considered fraud anywhere.

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

#635

Post by dopidopHN »

humanizersequel wrote: post #474
anonporridge wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol. When Coindesk is bringing more nuanced news reporting than CNBC, you know things are whack.

I wasn't acquainted with them until roughly 6 months ago, but from what I've seen Coindesk has actually been an excellent publication.

Media arm of digital currency group. Fine people, but just as a disclaimer.

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

#636

Post by leobg »

Aunche wrote: post #409
indigodaddy wrote: post #370

From https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/13/sam-bankman-fried-denied-bai... : “Bankman-Fried's parents were animated during the proceeding, at times laughing or putting their fingers in their ears, according to Coindesk.” … what in the world.. I guess they really think they are going to somehow get him out of this.. how do they not understand that this type of behavior is not in any way helpful to him?

This is mainstream media being sensationalist per usual. This is what the original Coindesk article wrote. "They appeared to oscillate between dejection and defiance, at times holding their heads in their hands and clasping their hands. Bankman-Fried’s mother audibly laughed several times when her son was referred to as a “fugitive” and his father occasionally put his fingers in his ears as if to drown out the sound…

What a laughable game of telephone. A writes “holding their heads in their hands”. And B, presumably to add their own twist to the story, perhaps to avoid quoting A verbatim, turns it into “put their fingers in their ears”.

Edit: Just realized that A actually did speak of the father putting his fingers in his ears.

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

#637

Post by l33tman »

HWR_14 wrote: post #615
l33t233372 wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can’t give Tom Brady his time back.

Of the people stolen from, Tom Brady losing a day filming commercials is pretty low on the list of things I care about. Like he got paid $X for his endorsement. I would prefer that money go to the people whose life savings were stolen.

Didn't exactly that happen, didn't Tom Brady put his life savings in FTX? :/

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

#638

Post by nayroclade »

woodpanel wrote: post #628
totalZero wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Shkreli is a good example of how well oiled justice runs if the defendant is politically indefensible. In the same vein the treatment that SBF got so far (eg getting invited as speaker on a NYT event that featured people such as Selenskyy) makes me fear it will be a much softer prosecution.

A couple of days ago there was a consensus group of Republican commentators confidently asserting SBF’s Democratic donations and connections meant there would no investigation/prosecution at all. Perhaps now this have pivoted to saying they’ll go easy on him?

It seems to me, all these assertions say nothing about the process of justice for SBF, and instead only illustrate that the people making them can’t conceive that there is a section of the political class who believe the law should apply equally to rich people as well as poor people.

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

#639

Post by ciphol »

woodpanel wrote: post #628
totalZero wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Shkreli is a good example of how well oiled justice runs if the defendant is politically indefensible. In the same vein the treatment that SBF got so far (eg getting invited as speaker on a NYT event that featured people such as Selenskyy) makes me fear it will be a much softer prosecution.

NYT is not the government. It's a private business that looks at profit first, politics second, and impartial justice last if at all. The financial lure of a panel with SBF post-scandal must have been too much to resist. It's not even clear the panel (did it happen in the end? I'm not sure) would do SBF any good, given his tendency to self-incriminate. On the other hand I'm sure it was incredible for NYT ratings.

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

#640

Post by perihelions »

tptacek wrote: post #276
dopamean wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got downvoted yesterday for implying this. Is it true that her sentencing was "right in the middle?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33963823

I'm fuzzy on this too. Her sentence was close to what the prosecution asked for, but the prosecution also seems to have asked for something much lower than the guidelines allowed --- so did the PSR.

That's right. Holmes' sentencing guidelines went over the top of the scale (45/43), and the prosecution recommended a variance to lower that. The guideline calculation was 80 years.

- "Through this variance request, the government also acknowledges that the Holmes’ crimes were not motivated by a short-term desire for financial gain. Second, this recommended sentence satisfies the ‘sufficient but not greater than necessary’ standard found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Finally, the Court will achieve the important sentencing goal of providing adequate deterrence to criminal conduct through a 15-year custodial sentence."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/theranos-founder-elizabeth-hol... (Mitchell Epner)

Post reply on HN