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

721–730 of 1001 posts

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#721

Post by Tangurena2 »

fsckboy wrote: post #473
FFP999 wrote: post #393

> You’d think this MIT graduate would wise up, but he never did. The MIT campus has a major public road running through the middle of it, one of the busiest surface streets in the area. You don't have to stand there very long to see a crowd of students almost get hit by a car because they didn't look before they crossed the street. Point is, the old cliche is true, there really is such a thing as a person with a lot…

that "almost hit by car" anecdote is complete nonsense. There is plentiful jay-walking in Boston/Cambridge (just as there is in New York City, and has been recently legalized in California). To an outsider, perhaps it looks like people are dangerously walking into traffic? But how many MIT students actually get hit by cars? the number would be unusually high if the number of close calls were unusually high, but witho…

I went to Purdue. The joke among engineering students was that we used calculus to compute trajectories and to avoid "elastic" collisions with motor vehicles when crossing State Street (the main road through campus). And that the liberal arts students got to go to some secret class where they were taught how to do that without calculus.

Back then, painted crosswalks would have been a waste of paint.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#722

Post by josephd79 »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #720
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 Carol…

I agree, didn't they admit they knew what they were doing? They should all do the same amount of time.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#723

Post by mattmaroon »

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.

A 100 yr and a 70 yr jail sentence are basically the same thing. My guess is they knew they could win at trial pretty easily so they just didn’t offer him much of a deal, and from his perspective it was all or nothing so he might as well give trial a shot.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#726

Post by bo1024 »

StressedDev wrote: post #405
bo1024 wrote: post #122

Anyone know where to get good details? Specifically: do they know where the money went? If not, how did they prove intent (I assume they proved intent)? Edit: another thing I'm wondering is about jurisdiction, since most of this occurred offshore and didn't involve US customers.

RE: Where the money went - The customer's money was used for the following purposes: 1. To pay for Alameda's (Sam Bankman Fried's hedge fund) and FTX's loses 2. Invest in venture capital and make acquisitions 3. Political donations 4. Charitable donations 5. Luxury real-estate, boats, etc. 6. "loans" (i.e. transfer of stolen funds) to FTX's top executives RE: Intent - Intent was easy to prove. All of Sam Bankman-Frie…

Thanks, this is really helpful!

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#728

Post by Tangurena2 »

the_black_hand wrote: post #593
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 I don't think it's lack of wisdom but rather pathological hubris and a God-Complex. I've met kids like SBF at MIT. Very smart but at some point they think the rules don't apply to them. The've never failed before so why would they start now. After all, he was like the youngest billionaire, rich parents, good grades, top schools. Everything has gone his w…

"Getting out early" is not something done at the federal level. The President could pardon him. That's about it.

Let's pretend that Congress legalizes marijuana. The folks still in prison who had been convicted of selling or transporting it would not get released - unless the statute removing it from Schedule 1 also specifically required releasing those already convicted.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried Convicted

#729

Post by beedrillzzzzz »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #720
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 Carol…

Thats not true, Caroline and the main conspirators pled guilty and took plea deals, this is not immunity, they will still be sentenced to prison.
Post reply on HN