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

Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 1001 posts

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#711

Post by AlexandrB »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #668
randycupertino wrote: post #320

I liked the article detailing how poorly he did on the stand: https://www.thefp.com/p/humiliating-cross-examination-sam-ba... “Did you say in private, ‘Fuck regulators?’ ” “Did you call some customers ‘dumb motherfuckers?’ ” “Did you fly to the Super Bowl in a private plane?” “Most FTX customers did not have a line of credit, correct?” “Do you deny that Alameda had a $65 billion line of credit?” And on, and on, and o…

> You’d think this MIT graduate would wise up, but he never did. After interacting with professional managers with degrees from supposedly illustrious institutions for years during my career, I don't see a good basis for this expectation. What is more fascinating is how the professional management class, as incompetent as they are, have managed to gain the reputation of wisdom and competence in the collective subcons…

> What is more fascinating is how the professional management class, as incompetent as they are, have managed to gain the reputation of wisdom and competence in the collective subconscious.

Have they? It's pretty common to hear people complaining about "clueless MBAs" here and on other parts of the internet.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#713

Post by gardenhedge »

mejutoco wrote: post #612
shever73 wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there really is such a thing as a person with a lot of book-learning but less common sense than a sea slug I don't even think SBF had the book-learning, just intellectual arrogance. "I don’t want to say no book is ever worth reading, but I actually do believe something pretty close to that. I think, if you wrote a book, you f---ed up, and it should have been a six-paragraph blog post."

The craziest thing to me is that when he was saying things like that noone in the mainstream media was questioning him. The FT had a very flattering lunch interview with him shortly before his demise. It was embarrassing how they were portraying him.

People like people who talk a lot. It's that simple.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#714

Post by greg7mdp »

mejutoco wrote: post #612
shever73 wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there really is such a thing as a person with a lot of book-learning but less common sense than a sea slug I don't even think SBF had the book-learning, just intellectual arrogance. "I don’t want to say no book is ever worth reading, but I actually do believe something pretty close to that. I think, if you wrote a book, you f---ed up, and it should have been a six-paragraph blog post."

The craziest thing to me is that when he was saying things like that noone in the mainstream media was questioning him. The FT had a very flattering lunch interview with him shortly before his demise. It was embarrassing how they were portraying him.

Elon Musk says idiotic stuff all the time and people revere him.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#715

Post by Tangurena2 »

vishnugupta wrote: post #600
hintymad wrote: post #243

I was reading the trial report by Inner City Press. The AUSAs were incredibly thorough and strategic. The evidences were air-tight, the cross-examination was masterfully controlled with precision and incisiveness, and of course the closing argument was forceful. It was a great joy to read the report, as if I was watching an extended episode of The Good Fight. On the other hand, the defense was really weak, quite hand…

To be fair SBF convicted himself on a platter. Only he knows what made him think he'd get away by facing trial. Maybe he was just dumb, overconfident, ill-advised, or a combination of everything.

He is one of those people who think they can talk their way out of everything. Everything is not only negotiable, but the only possible "truth" is what they are saying right now (yesterday's "truth"? "You're remembering that incorrectly - I never said that!"). I hated working for people like that, and I'd feel like I needed to take a shower after every meeting. If you only encounter them occasionally, a normal person would just think "wow, they're really charismatic". Daily, repeated contacts with them crawl under your skin. I'm grateful that the word "gaslighting" has entered common vocabulary as I didn't have words to describe them (back then).

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#716

Post by meaningjoj »

bmitc wrote: post #433
hintymad wrote: post #243

I was reading the trial report by Inner City Press. The AUSAs were incredibly thorough and strategic. The evidences were air-tight, the cross-examination was masterfully controlled with precision and incisiveness, and of course the closing argument was forceful. It was a great joy to read the report, as if I was watching an extended episode of The Good Fight. On the other hand, the defense was really weak, quite hand…

The defense really had no option. Several of Bankman-Fried's previous defense teams quit on him due to his behavior. Even in this trial, during a session with just the judge, the defense made an objection to a question, the judge sustained it, but Bankman-Fried answered anyways. His own defense team asked him where had he been this entire trial because the objection was sustained, you didn't have to answer that. Bank…

This says something of culture of hubris that is so easily elevated to leadership positions in America's tech culture. It's nice to see one of these fail-bros get taken down.

But two points remain. 1. Had they been able to sustain this Ponzi scheme to IPO, he would be celebrated as a tech-god, as opposed to facing hard time. 2. The VCs aren't required to disclose their sales of crypto. My guess is they made money of this clown, directly at the expense of all the FTC users he fleeced. As long as that keeps happening, this sort of thing will never stop.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#717

Post by planede »

bambax wrote: post #651
bmitc wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The defense really had no option. Several of Bankman-Fried's previous defense teams quit on him due to his behavior. Even in this trial, during a session with just the judge, the defense made an objection to a question, the judge sustained it, but Bankman-Fried answered anyways. His own defense team asked him where had he been this entire trial because the objection was sustained, you didn't have to answer that. Bank…

Well said. > Several of Bankman-Fried's previous defense teams quit on him I remember SBF told someone at some point during his ill-advised media tour post-collapse, that his lawyers could "go fuck themselves". But I was wondering what happened then with said lawyer... Is there a list somewhere of the teams that quit?

They probably took half of the advise and just went.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#718

Post by Tangurena2 »

berniedurfee wrote: post #670

So what’s the final outcome? A long prison sentence or a few years hanging out on appeal followed by a few years in a low security federal penitentiary and a long career doing speaking engagements and appearances? Holmes got 9 years, but her actions had severe real world effects on people. Is that the ceiling for SBF?

In almost all circumstances, the security level of the prison is determined by the "points" measured up in the sentencing guidelines. There can sometimes be "enhancements" (like you used a gun during the crime, or hate speech). There can sometimes be mitigations (like the person taking responsibility for the crime).

If you add up all of the crimes SBF was convicted of, the max could be 110 years. It isn't that simple. Sentencing is a complicated thing that could be replaced with a simple spreadsheet. Instead, judges have to do the calculations by hand with charts and checklists.

Madoff was sentenced to 150 years.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#719

Post by Kye »

bambax wrote: post #651
bmitc wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The defense really had no option. Several of Bankman-Fried's previous defense teams quit on him due to his behavior. Even in this trial, during a session with just the judge, the defense made an objection to a question, the judge sustained it, but Bankman-Fried answered anyways. His own defense team asked him where had he been this entire trial because the objection was sustained, you didn't have to answer that. Bank…

Well said. > Several of Bankman-Fried's previous defense teams quit on him I remember SBF told someone at some point during his ill-advised media tour post-collapse, that his lawyers could "go fuck themselves". But I was wondering what happened then with said lawyer... Is there a list somewhere of the teams that quit?

I hoped there would be a "Category: lawyers who fired famous clients" or something like it, but no luck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_representation

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#720

Post by pclmulqdq »

hintymad wrote: post #243

I was reading the trial report by Inner City Press. The AUSAs were incredibly thorough and strategic. The evidences were air-tight, the cross-examination was masterfully controlled with precision and incisiveness, and of course the closing argument was forceful. It was a great joy to read the report, as if I was watching an extended episode of The Good Fight. On the other hand, the defense was really weak, quite hand…

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the AUSA's performance here was not particularly impressive. Yes, they constructed an airtight case, but to do that, they handed out immunity deals like candy to all of SBF's co-conspirators. Sure, they got their guy, but it almost looks like they wanted to craft a narrative that puts all of the blame on him. Because of that, several other huge fraudsters here (eg Caroline Ellison) get to walk. The US attorneys seem to have set up SBF to be the fall guy, while being far too soft on everyone who conspired with him.
Post reply on HN