[HN Gopher] Judge sends Sam Bankman-Fried to jail over witness t... ___________________________________________________________________ Judge sends Sam Bankman-Fried to jail over witness tampering Author : coloneltcb Score : 227 points Date : 2023-08-11 19:28 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com) | Animats wrote: | Courts seem to be getting somewhat tougher on white-collar crime. | | - This. | | - The Supreme Court just stopped the deal that would have let the | Sackler family, the OxyContin pushers, off the hook personally. | | - Hunter Biden's no-jail plea deal was rejected, and he goes to | trial. | | - Trump goes to trial, too. | adrr wrote: | Sacklers aren't even getting prosecuted even though their fraud | is responsible for killing thousands of people. If we compare | the amount of harm SBF did to society vs Sacklers, it isn't | even on the same scale. | jjtheblunt wrote: | Why do you say they're not getting prosecuted. The decision | yesterday restores their exposure to prosecution. | flutas wrote: | 2/4 of those aren't exactly as you're thinking of them. | | > The Supreme Court just stopped the deal that would have let | the Sackler family, the OxyContin pushers, off the hook | personally. | | Note, they didn't stop the deal. They temporarily paused it | while they hear the case later this year. [0] | | > Hunter Biden's no-jail plea deal was rejected, and he goes to | trial. | | Wasn't directly rejected, the judged asked questions which gave | answers that hunters team felt they didn't agree to, including | that he is still the subject of ongoing investigations. [1] | | > At one point, Noreika asked whether the investigation was | ongoing, to which Weiss responded that it was but said he could | not share any further details. | | > Noreika also raised a hypothetical, asking whether Biden | could face charges of failing to register as a foreign agent | and whether the agreement blocks his prosecution on such a | charge. The defense said it believed the agreement would | prohibit him from being charged, and the prosecution then | disagreed. | | > Clark was overheard telling a prosecutor, "Then we'll rip it | up," most likely in a reference to the plea deal, as they | discussed the disagreement during a brief break before he | eventually relented. | | [0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-purdue-pharma- | set... | | [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice- | department/hunter-b... | tylermenezes wrote: | > - The Supreme Court just stopped the deal that would have let | the Sackler family, the OxyContin pushers, off the hook | personally. | | Paused, and is reviewing an appeal after a court approved the | deal. | | > - Hunter Biden's no-jail plea deal was rejected, and he goes | to trial. | | It wasn't really rejected, there was no deal at all. The two | parties didn't have the same understanding of a key term of the | deal, the judge pointed it out, and then the parties weren't | able to agree on that term. | silisili wrote: | Happy to hear about the Sackler case, this is the first I've | heard of that decision. | | Just finished a couple shows about it. I wonder how much of | Dopesick and Painkiller are true. If even 1/4 of it is, the | entire family should be in prison for the rest of their lives, | and that's being lenient. | asu_thomas wrote: | > _this is the first I 've heard of that decision_ | | That's because it's not true. The deal was not stopped. It | was only delayed, but I wouldn't place blame on parent for | getting this wrong; the media has done their best to imply | otherwise. | lusus_naturae wrote: | If you're just speculating, it's useless. If you have info, | then please share. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | Pretty trivial web search: | https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/supreme-court- | purdue-p... | _delirium wrote: | The order is here, issued yesterday (August 10): https:// | www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/081023zr1_98... | | The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and stayed the | lower court order pending their own decision. What they | agreed to hear: > The parties are | directed to brief and argue the > following | question: Whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a | > court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization | under > Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a | release that extinguishes > claims held by | nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, > | without the claimants' consent. | | I think you can fairly describe this as the Supreme Court | agreeing to _scrutinize_ the Sackler bankruptcy deal, and | it 's possible they will end up throwing it out. But it's | also possible they'll decide the opposite. | phone8675309 wrote: | They've stopped the deal from going into effect, which is | what I think what the previous poster meant. | | You're right that they haven't thrown out the deal, but | they've prevented it from going forward without further | scrutiny as the Sacklers and their lobbyist thralls would | have wanted. | [deleted] | asu_thomas wrote: | The ruling class would love for you to think the supreme court | stopped the Sackler deal but they absolutely did not. They only | delayed it. | inemesitaffia wrote: | You might not be part of the ruling class. But you're | definitely an elite | Eumenes wrote: | > - Hunter Biden's no-jail plea deal was rejected, and he goes | to trial. | | His daddy's AG just assigned a special prosecutor, who already | works for the government (and ironically was the one who gave | Hunter the original sweetheart deal) ... seems sus | maxbond wrote: | He is the prosecutor who was assigned to the case by Trump's | DOJ. | | Weiss _asked_ to be appointed special prosecutor. | | Appointing him as special prosecutor gives Biden's DOJ _less_ | control over the case. | | If they had put a new prosecutor in there, people would | (rightly) be making noise about that, instead. | | https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/who-is-david- | weiss-u... | Eumenes wrote: | I don't think it matters who appointed him, or which DOJ, | or that he asked to. The guy has been working this case for | years. Why has it been taking so long? He concluded his | investigation with a very generous plea deal, which | thankfully was rejected in the last minute. Get someone new | and more importantly, independent. Merrick Garland already | has his biased hands on this, he should recuse himself from | any involvement in this case. Can you imagine the outrage | if Trumps' AG was appointing special prosecutors to oversee | criminal cases of his children? | dragonwriter wrote: | > Can you imagine the outrage if Trumps' AG was | appointing special prosecutors to oversee criminal cases | of his children? | | No, because I think Trump's political opponents | understand that legally: | | (1) that's who, under the law, appoints Special Counsel, | and | | (2) the appointment of Special Counsel is the legal | mechanism for minimizing political influence in a | particular sensitive criminal investigation, so its | _good_ when that happens. | | And we don't have to speculate much, because the DOJ | under Trump _did_ appoint Special Counsel, and I remember | mostly positive outcry from Trump 's opponents and | negative outcry from his _supporters_ when Trump 's | (acting) AG appointed Special Counsel to investigate | Trump himself. (There was negative outcry at the later | political interference with the Special Counsel's report | by Trump's later AG, but that's a different issue.) | | The "well, if the roles were reversed" counterfactual | style of argument is usually a dumb way of the speaker | just injecting unsubstantiated speculation to do | whataboutism without facts, but its at its worst when the | proposed counterfactual or something very close to it | actually happened, and the treatment was exactly the | opposite than what the argument presupposes. | mrguyorama wrote: | >Can you imagine the outrage if Trumps' AG | | You mean like how at least a few of the judges involved | in Trumps many cases were directly appointed by him? | Eumenes wrote: | they should of recused themselves too and refused to | oversee the cases ... I think Jeff Sessions did actually. | maxbond wrote: | > Why has it been taking so long? | | These things take time. | | > Get someone new and more importantly, independent. | | The entire point of being a special prosecutor is to have | more independence. | | It is absolutely impossible for Garland to appoint | someone perceived as more independent than someone | appointed by Barr. If Garland fired Barr's prosecutor | from the case and appointed someone else, people would | interpret it as interference (reasonably!). | | > Merrick Garland already has his biased hands on this, | he should recuse himself from any involvement in this | case. | | Appointing a special prosecutor is pretty much | equivalent. | | > Can you imagine the outrage if Trumps' AG was | appointing special prosecutors to oversee criminal cases | of his children? | | If Trump were president and his children were under | criminal investigation, appointing a special prosecutor | would be the correct thing to do. There would be outrage | if he _didn 't_. | dragonwriter wrote: | This is a response to a flagged & dead sibling comment | that, while wrong, I think is worth addressing and | doesn't deserve flagging: | | > Special prosecutor's aren't supposed to work for the | government | | No, that's literally who they work for. | | > They are generally retired lawyers or judges. | | Since the expiration of the law providing for | _independent_ counsels in 1999, there have been 7 special | counsels appointed under DOJ regulations. | | 0 have been _retired_ lawyers (all have been active | lawyers in private or government practice), 0 have been | _past_ (retired or otherwise) judges, and 3 of the 7 have | been sitting US Attorneys at the time appointed, and 3 of | the 7 were _former_ US Attorneys (the one that was never | a US Attorney was a former state AG.) | Eumenes wrote: | [flagged] | maxbond wrote: | The commentary I've heard from prosecutors in the media, | I believe from the Lawfare podcast but I can't swear to | it, is that this gun charge is so minor it wouldn't | normally be charged unless it was in combination with | something worth prosecutor's time. (He lied on a piece of | paperwork to get the gun about doing drugs. There's no | evidence afaik that the gun was used in a crime. It's a | federal crime, sure, but that is just not a huge deal.) | | Engaging in consensual commercial sex is generally not | viewed as being worth the time of a federal prosecutor. | Same for using drugs. Hunter Biden's influence pedaling | business was sketchy and gross, but as far as anyone can | tell - not illegal. (Not an endorsement, he seems like a | piece of shit.) | | If I did those things, I would anticipate being in hot | water with my local PD. I don't think the federal | government would be impressed enough to even pass it on | to the local PD. I wouldn't be surprised if I could take | a plea deal and do community service, but I'm not a | lawyer, who knows. | | The tax evasion is probably the most serious crime. Maybe | you think someone should go to prison for that, I don't | really see the value in punishing them over and above | getting the taxes paid and maybe banning him from running | a company for 5 years or whatever. | ceejayoz wrote: | > Can you imagine the outrage if Trumps' AG was | appointing special prosecutors to oversee criminal cases | of his children? | | Well, that's a good question. How outraged were you when | he messed with those cases? | https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/20/nyregion/trump- | geoffrey-b... | Eumenes wrote: | That's bad too. The entire state of NY DOJ has been | focused on Trump since 2016 However, its ironic that alot | of the stuff is coming out a year before the 2024 | elections. | mrguyorama wrote: | It's not irony, most of the cases NY started were pretty | unreasonable and more than a stretch, and have not gone | very far, while the current stuff took this long for all | the legal machines to get through, because it's really | obnoxious to read through mountains of boxes of | classified documents to figure out how bad it is, and | attempting to claw back some partially destroyed evidence | and flip important witnesses. | | This is how long a trial of an important person takes. | | Everything you've said has been less accurate than the | headlines you've cribbed them from. | dragonwriter wrote: | > It's not irony, most of the cases NY started were | pretty unreasonable and more than a stretch, and have not | gone very far | | You mean, like, the guilty on all counts result in the | Trump Org tax fraud case or the abuse of charity funds | for personal political interests case against Donald | Trump, his children, and the Trunp Foundation that ended | with millions in liability, various bans, and the | disbanding of the Trump Foundation? | | Or something else that was a stretch that didn't go far? | dragonwriter wrote: | > The entire state of NY DOJ has been focused on Trump | since 2016 | | No, it hasn't. They've done plenty else. Probably spent | more time on the NRA than Trump. | vkou wrote: | Considering that his playbook when it comes to legal | cases against him consists of 'delay everything until | either he, or the plaintiff drops dead from a heart | attack', this doesn't seem ironic. It's just how he | operates. | | While that is an excellent approach to take when some | nobody is suing you in a civil court, criminal | prosecutors often have a... Longer, more patient view on | things. The wheels of justice grind slowly, and all that. | | The better question is 'How is he still walking around a | free man?', when he makes a habit of threatening | witnesses and judges. | compsciphd wrote: | do the people who put up his bail money lose it due to him | violating the terms of the bail and having it be revoked? or do | they get it back now as its not needed anymore? | duxup wrote: | My understanding is that generally you don't lose the bail | money unless the person ultimately doesn't show up in court. | There are exceptions and the judge has some discretion. | eastbound wrote: | I suppose if he showed up for jail, then the assets weren't | seized. | zerocrates wrote: | My understanding is that the default federal rule is that you | forfeit for any violation, but that the judge has discretion to | decide otherwise. | | I doubt you'll see movement on, for example, the parents' | house, but I could imagine the monetary portion being | forfeited. | loeg wrote: | No, he didn't skip trial. | TMWNN wrote: | My understanding is that SBF's bail was put up by his parents | (pledging their home) and family friends, at and out of Stanford, | who put up their own funds. What happens to that? | babyshake wrote: | Presumably it gets returned once he is behind bars. I'm not an | expert though. | ars wrote: | It does get returned. The money is not a punishment, it's | just to make sure he shows up when told to. | | If he doesn't show....... | duxup wrote: | This wasn't his first round of meeting the judge about bail | related violations too IIRC. | swores wrote: | I wouldn't normally approve of anyone writing this sort of | comment, but fuck it: | | Do not bother reading comments in this thread. | | The hot takes are already ridiculous, and I honestly don't know | why I either bothered to start reading, nor why I bothered to | point out the flaws in 4 different comments already. | | I can't actually imagine what interesting things could be | commented about it at this time that isn't just rehashing | people's opinions of him that've been said a thousand times | already, so I'm closing the thread and won't be coming back to | read the inevitable 1000 comments that are coming. | | I'm just leaving this comment here in the hope that, if others | agree enough to upvote it, maybe some of you will be spared | wasting time like I just have. | paulcole wrote: | > The hot takes are already ridiculous, and I honestly don't | know why I either bothered to start reading | | The ridiculous hot takes _are_ why I start reading! | swores wrote: | That's fair enough, enjoy! | ciabattabread wrote: | Come back when this thread has 1000 comments and the "more" | link after the first thread. | bryanlarsen wrote: | Hint: it's often a good idea to use something like hckrnews.com | to read stories after a significant delay. That gives time for | the middlebrow comments[1] that shoot quickly to the top some | time to get rebutted and sink. | | 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224 | pavel_lishin wrote: | How did he get $250m for bail to begin with? | anonymoushn wrote: | He didn't have to put up $250m, it was sufficient for family | and associates to pledge their houses which are worth much less | than that | wmf wrote: | Because bail numbers are fake. He put up a house and some other | money but nowhere near $250M. | pirate787 wrote: | Incorrect. You don't understand the system. There is | collateral posted against a bond for the full amount; if he | skips town the people who posted bail collateral are | responsible for the full amount, $250 million. | [deleted] | vkou wrote: | A bank wouldn't lend people money on those terms, why on | earth should a judge? | | If he doesn't have/can't borrow the full bail amount, I see | no reason for him to be out on bail. Normal people don't | get this kind of privilege. | dragonwriter wrote: | He didn't. | | The bail amount is the penalty for violation; while in the | state systems it tends to have a simple mathematical | relationship to the price the defendant pays for a bond (often | regulated to around, or sometimes fixed at exactly, 10%), in | the federal system it is more fluid. | primitivesuave wrote: | His bail was secured by ~$4m in collateral. If he flees from | trial, the people who bailed him out would be held legally | responsible for the full $250m. | smsm42 wrote: | Do I get it right that all SBF had to do to stay out of jail (at | least until trial) is exactly nothing, and he still failed at | that? | tonetheman wrote: | [dead] | ladon86 wrote: | House arrest? Multiple friends of mine have reported spotting him | at SFO over the last few months. | | Here's a video from someone (who I don't know) from late March: | https://twitter.com/sidtriv/status/1641641533240905728 | ttul wrote: | He was permitted to travel to New York under the terms of his | bail to meet with lawyers. | EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: | So what's with $250m bail? Will the judge take it? Or only if he | escapes? | vkou wrote: | 1. There never was $250m. | | 2. Generally speaking, you only lose your bail money if you | don't show up to court when a judge tells you to. | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: | > Members of the press, including counsel for The New York Times | and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, had filed | letters objecting to Bankman-Fried's detention, citing free | speech concerns. | | > The final straw, according to prosecutors, was Bankman-Fried | leaking private diary entries of his ex-girlfriend, Caroline | Ellison, to the New York Times. Ellison pleaded guilty to federal | charges in Dec. 2022. | | > The government added that Bankman-Fried had over 100 phone | calls with one of the authors of the Times story prior to | publication - many of which lasted for approximately 20 minutes. | | It seems someone at The NY Times is very sympathetic to him. | swores wrote: | > _" It seems someone at The NY Times is very sympathetic to | him."_ | | Has their coverage of him been positive? I've not read any of | it so I don't have a clue, but in a hypothetical situation | where you're a journalist at NYT who thinks he's a guilty & | idiotic asshole, if he wanted to call you and start chatting | away wouldn't you still take the calls and accept any documents | he leaks to you despite not being sympathetic to him? | | It feels like to make the claim in your last sentence you need | to show one or more articles that paint him sympathetically | since his arrest, not just the fact that one or more | journalists haven't refused to speak with him? | [deleted] | tokai wrote: | > [Sam Trabucco] also writes crossword puzzles for The New York | Times [0] | | > US prosecutors have not said Trabucco was involved in any | wrongdoing even as he worked in Alameda's C-suite with several | execs who are now facing a slew of charges. [1] | | hmm | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Trabucco | | [1] https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/currencies/meet- | sam... | zerocrates wrote: | Writing some crossword puzzles for the Times is about the | smallest quantum amount of "juice" a person could possibly | have. | maxbond wrote: | The NYT keeps offering him rope in the form of a sympathetic | ear, and SBF keeps hanging himself. | | If the NYT is his friend, I would hate to see what his enemies | have in mind for him. | asu_thomas wrote: | > _It seems someone at The NY Times is very sympathetic to | him._ | | It's more likely (and all but certain) that persons involved | with him or his ventures have meaningful influence at the NYT. | Sympathy has little meaning in the presence of structural | interests. | [deleted] | JimtheCoder wrote: | [flagged] | Evidlo wrote: | This is the first time I've seen a prison rape joke on HN. | nickthegreek wrote: | Sadly, I don't think he was joking. | tdhz77 wrote: | [flagged] | 1letterunixname wrote: | A product of an environment of infinite entitlement. Maybe he has | a Twinkie defense? | zerocrates wrote: | I think this would be more of an "affluenza" case. | jonathankoren wrote: | To be That Guy(tm), the Twinkie Defense isn't just some dumb | meme. It was literal defense used in double murder trial. | | In 1978, San Francisco supervisor Dan White went into city hall | and shot killed mayor George Moscone and supervisor Harvey | Milk. | | At trial, he claimed diminished capacity because of a blood | sugar imbalance because he ate some Twinkies. The jury ended up | acquitting him of premeditated murder, and instead found him | guilty of the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscone%E2%80%93Milk_assassina... | etc-hosts wrote: | not exactly. This misinterpretation of what happened during | the Dan White trial is all the fault of Paul Krassner | | https://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Myth-of-the-Twinkie- | de... | | A better summary is the defense presented an argument that | Dan White was massively depressed (Vietnam combat vet, just | lost his job), and eating massive amounts of Twinkies was 1 | of the symptoms of his depression. | | Dan White's lawyer appeared on an episode of Star Trek | https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/11/us/melvin-belli-dies- | at-8... | dragonwriter wrote: | To be That Other Guy(tm), the problem with your contribution | isn't that it might be seen as pedantic, but that its also | wrong. | | > To be That Guy(tm), the Twinkie Defense isn't just some | dumb meme. It was literal defense used in double murder | trial. | | It is a dumb meme that has evolved around a misleading name a | reporter gave to the defense at that trial, which has morphed | into an myth about the nature of the defense that you now | repeat as fact, despite linking sources explaining that it | isn't. | | > At trial, he claimed diminished capacity because of a blood | sugar imbalance because he ate some Twinkies. | | No, he didn't, as your own first source notes. His recent | switch from being a health food nut to eating junk food (the | context in which Twinkies were incidentally mentioned) was | brought up as one of several external behavioral indicia of | the longer tern mental breakdown the defense claimed he was | going through, not its cause. And that longer term breakdown | was context for the acute break they (and the psychiatrists | called as expert witnesses) claimed White experienced that | was the center of the diminished capacity defense. | tedunangst wrote: | What happened to the theory that he'd never be jailed? The expert | analysts were so confident. | JeremyNT wrote: | This is _entirely_ a self-own, because he was trying to | intimidate a witness. | | If SBF had done the "normal" white collar criminal move of | hiring a really expensive team of lawyers and doing what they | told him, he'd be free as a bird. | | But I guess SBF isn't your "normal" white collar criminal - | he's a special kind of stupid. | sharts wrote: | He's Stanford special | bbarnett wrote: | Your honour, only a truly innocent man, panicking, afraid, | would act so absurdly! | sharts wrote: | Perhaps they meant prison. This jail time is just in-lieu of | bail until the actual trial. | | I think a lot of people still predict that he will be set free | from any wrongdoing after the trial because of his massive | donations and money laundering for the political class. | WeylandYutani wrote: | SBF is just the fall guy. They always catch the one who took it | just a little too far in order to placate the masses and | pretend that someone is policing the stock markets. | | For the record the guy is guilty as sin but so is everyone in | crypto. | stefan_ wrote: | To be fair, prosecutors were trying hard to keep him out of it. | elicash wrote: | It's certainly true that prosecutors love when defendants | keep talking publicly about the case. It makes their job much | easier. | asu_thomas wrote: | The answer is so simple that I struggle to believe you couldn't | think of it yourself. Statistically, the best bet by far was | and still is that he wouldn't be jailed. His crimes are | extremely common; being jailed or even convicted for them is | extremely rare. | [deleted] | lusus_naturae wrote: | I am sorry, but you're saying investment institutions | routinely commit wire fraud? Um, is this true or one of those | my-fave-youtube-debate-bro-said-its-true? Where are the | whistleblowers? The SEC has a handsome program for such | reporting. Or I guess I am naive. | swores wrote: | The people saying that were presumably making predictions about | whether or not he'd be found guilty with a jail sentence (which | hasn't yet happened), not that if he does something as stupid | as witness tampering he wouldn't have his bail revoked (which | is what has happened). | | Personally I always thought it extremely likely he would get a | prison sentence, but I think you're being premature to act like | people who didn't think that have already been proven wrong. | wmf wrote: | If he really owned the entire judiciary of the US and Bahamas | his bail wouldn't have been revoked. | parl_match wrote: | Honestly, it sounds like his influence absolutely helped | him get cushy terms of release. It was just after | _repeated_ and _willful_ violations of the conditions of | bail, that it was revoked. This was not his first run-in | with the judge over his bail conditions, it's wild that he | was allowed more. | adrr wrote: | What are you comparing it to? There is witness | intimidation going right now on another high profile case | and I doubt they'll revoke bail. I am curious what are | the normal thresholds before you get bail revoked. | dragonwriter wrote: | > There is witness intimidation going right now on | another high profile case and I doubt they'll revoke | bail. | | The Other Guy has the sense to do vague and diffuse | public messaging that (so far, without more of a pattern | or additional acts) that has still gotten him warned | about continuing it. | maxbond wrote: | I think you missed the threads they're referencing. I see | from your other comments you think there's a lot of hot takes | in this thread. The threads around the time he was charged | were full of nuclear takes about how the justice system was | broken, how every minor development in the case meant he | would get off scott free, etc. It also brought the | antisemites of HN out of the woodwork to share conspiracy | theories (given that SBF is a Jewish person who committed a | financial crime). They were the roughest threads on HN I had | seen at the time. (There were still good, insightful | comments, but they were diamonds in the rough.) | | This is more or less an injoke. I completely see where | they're coming from. | ReptileMan wrote: | Staying in the Bahamas after the thing blew up but before | institutions started to spin their wheels was not the | wisest choice a man could make. If he acted faster he could | have pulled a Jho Law. | mrguyorama wrote: | You're forgetting how "He donated to democrats so he'll get | off scott free" | randallsquared wrote: | People who were arguing that then probably now would | argue that the politicians found a workaround: just | having him not charged for bribery and campaign finance | crimes. No need to investigate the recipients if the | alleged crime is ignored! | | https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/27/prosecutors-drop-another- | cha... | function_seven wrote: | Yeah, stupidest hot-take I ever saw in this case. | | No politician will stick their neck out for someone based | on past donations if: | | 1. There is little hope for future money | | 2. The donor is universally reviled | | If anything, that donation history made the recipients | even _more_ likely to turn on him. They must distance | themselves. | Ekaros wrote: | There is time when you cut your useful idiots loose. And | when they have run out of money, or you can make example | of them makes perfect sense. | Alupis wrote: | Quit frankly, if SBF would keep his darn mouth shut and stop | doing completely irrational stupid things - he probably would | remain out on bail at least until his trial. | | He's become his own worst enemy it seems. | jonathankoren wrote: | "Shut the fuck up" is literally the best advice any defense | lawyer gives. | | It's embarassing just how often it's ignored. | godzillabrennus wrote: | Running a large fraud for a long time is a pretty stupid | thing. He's just being called stupid instead of a genius now | that people have more context into his dealings. | mrguyorama wrote: | >have more context into his dealings. | | More like, now that he isn't making a profit. | Alupis wrote: | He's mostly being called stupid for his activities after | his fraud was uncovered. | | He just can't seem to shut up. | pcwalton wrote: | Problem is, the personality traits that lead people to commit | crimes in the first place are the same personality traits | that lead people to eviscerate their own defense. The | unfortunate truth is that most people who have the self- | control to engender the best possible outcome for their case | don't find themselves in court to begin with. | twelve40 wrote: | if he thought the leak will help his defense then it's not | irrational at all, even if he has to pay for it now | Alupis wrote: | It's irrational in that his defense was mostly he was in | easy over his head and had no intention of defrauding | anyone. His actions are making that angle impossible. | twelve40 wrote: | being in over his head while being "manipulated by an | evil ex" still sound pretty rational. pretty desperate, | but not too inconsistent at least. | yieldcrv wrote: | if he wasn't an idiot he wouldn't have been, cant control | stupid | | unless the theory was about collusion in the executive branch | and white house, then you still have an independent judiciary | sillysaurusx wrote: | Same thing that happened with the expert analysis of LK99. It | turns out that the real experts tend to be quieter. | refulgentis wrote: | In our overly connected times, it can feel like there's | always two tribes, ours, and the one with the immoral | charlatans & savages. | | Buying into that leads to unpleasantly toned one-man morality | plays, based on obviously false claims, like there were | people claiming to be experts and then they claimed it was | guaranteed it was a room temperature superconductor. | Eji1700 wrote: | I mean they weren't quiet, just drowned out. | | There's this mindset of trusting dreams/drama/personalities | more than verifiable processes, and as communities like HN | have shown, even people in fields associated with better | logic clearly are willing to discard all the caution they'd | normally use because they'd like it to be true and someone is | saying it is. | | I feel like SBF actually represents this flaw wonderfully. A | person who just does what he wants and has mostly been well | enough off to dodge any sort of real consequences. He | probably still thought he was doing nothing wrong and still | does because the idea that he could be wrong is just not | possible because he knows so much. | | Honestly my already low opinion of groups like WHO/SEC has | dropped tremendously with recent events and how they were | handled on drama/media reporting rather than actual evidence | and science. This rush to the story is hellishly toxic to | doing things right, and the vitriol people will spew if you | conflict with them on it is gross. | mrguyorama wrote: | >even people in fields associated with better logic | | This is such an HN elitist opinion that needs to go away. | Programmers aren't magically better at "logic" ie making | good conclusions from messy data. We still have human | brains, and are equally prone to the same exact logical | fallacies and biases as everyone else. The human brain is | an anti-rational system. | | Stop pretending we are special little geniuses just because | we know advanced math or javascript. | | The only filter function for HN is a willingness to read | text from people who think they are better than you | Eji1700 wrote: | I said associated for a reason. Personally I think most | "smart" fields have about the same ratio of morons as any | other. | swores wrote: | I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about LK99 | other than feeling smug for some weird reason? | | Maybe I was looking in the wrong place about people | discussing LK99, but I've seen a lot of | comments/tweets/articles/etc about it, and while there've | been lots of optimistic discussions about how amazing a | discovery it will be if proven true, and lots of people | guessing whether it's more likely to be true, or fraud, or | not-fraud but a mistake, I've seen practically nobody | confidentially saying "this must be true". Have you? And even | if you have, it hasn't yet been proven to not be true. | | So... what's the point of your snide comment? | sillysaurusx wrote: | I think this logic works the other way around: very few | people were saying SBF was absolutely not going to jail, | just that it was unlikely. | | As for LK99, I suppose I'm bummed the hype didn't pan out. | It made me more skeptical of that kind of optimism, and it | seemed somewhat related. | jasonhansel wrote: | Some people conflate cynicism with wisdom. | fidotron wrote: | Good. At this point SBF has become an amazing caricature of | himself. | | I'm a very cynical old git, but even I have been amazed by the | limited bounds of my imagination which is forever defeated by | this story. | | Saying that, I do get the feeling he is now being scapegoated | quite hard, and that probably serves to motivate his latest | stupidities, but FTX required collective and not only individual | madness. That must not get lost in all this. | refulgentis wrote: | > FTX required collective and not only individual madness. | | I think this either conflates crypto with FTX, or | alternatively, SBF being on trial with being scapegoated. | | The other execs admitted they did something wrong and are | pleading guilty. This is individual madness | ramesh31 wrote: | >The other execs admitted they did something wrong and are | pleading guilty. This is individual madness | | They plead guilty because they were granted deals that | involve testifying against SBF, and sang like canaries. | | But the feds have every intention of nailing Sam as hard as | possible. There will be no plea bargaining for him. So it's | either fight it in court, or take the max sentence. What | we're seeing here are the last acts of a desperate man who | knows he's screwed either way. | itake wrote: | Why stop at execs? | lkjdsfsdf wrote: | Nope, they were all crazy. Look at the things Ellison was | writing and saying back then. And the money she was losing | while claiming to be a savant. | | Look at the programmer who put in the code that was something | like TRADE_IS_ALLOWED = HAS_POSITIVE_BALANCE || | TRADER_IS_ALMEDA. | | Just because they're pleading out doesn't mean they | are/weren't crazy. | refulgentis wrote: | I'm not sure what's crazy, insane, or demonstrates madness | with that, that's good ol' fashioned criming. Re: the | readings I was assigned, her Tumblr is standard fare for | the age and intellectual mileu, nothing crazy. | babyshake wrote: | Not to be all woke, but "crazy" and "madness" probably | aren't the right words for what happened here. | finite_depth wrote: | Depends on if you consider "crazy" to include rampant | narcissism fueled by the usual ridiculous elitism and | we're-smart-so-everything-will-work failure mode of | "rationalist" culture. | mrguyorama wrote: | They could also just be, you know, selfish assholes. | mcpackieh wrote: | If a flat broke person living on the street, doing lots | of drugs, mentally stressed by their circumstance, starts | making wild self-aggrandizing claims completely divorced | from reality, it isn't controversial to say that person | is 'crazy' or mentally ill. People might nitpick the | terminology you use to describe that person or criticize | you for needlessly drawing attention to it, but nobody | goes to bat for the sanity of a homeless person saying | crazy shit about themselves. | | But if a very rich person living in mansion, doing lots | of drugs, mentally stressed by the enormity of their | crimes, starts making wild self-aggrandizing claims | completely divorced from reality are they crazy? Suddenly | people have an interest in defending their mental sanity. | Why? Because rich people are entitled to more respect | than the homeless by virtue of their wealth, and | therefore we shouldn't put common labels like crazy on | them? Or maybe it's because a rich luxurious lifestyle | makes people immune to the onset of insanity? Were | Caligula and Nero not crazy then? On the contrary, I | think being very wealthy puts you at greater risk for | becoming crazy; the more elite somebody is the more | divorced from the typical human experience they become. | Power and wealth corrupts their minds, inflating their | egos to such an extent they lose track of reality. These | people were all crazy. Maybe they weren't "mentally ill" | in any biological sense, but they were _crazy_. | refulgentis wrote: | Not be all unpolitical, but maybe people use "woke" to | mean "people who turn me into a snowflake" | DonHopkins wrote: | Diabolic has religious connotations, but just the right | religious connotations. | nemo44x wrote: | They were on a lot of drugs. Drugs make you say and do shut | that in retrospect looks crazy. But sounded like a good | idea at the time. | BSEdlMMldESB wrote: | > That must not get lost in all this. | | I fear it will. so long as we keep being all confused between | individual things (actions of persons) and systemic truths | (actions of institutions). e.g. "Putin be Bad"... uhm, he's | just the face of a large government.... he does not exist in | isolation. | Mistletoe wrote: | Does anyone know where Sam Trabucco is or what happened to him? | Leave as Co-CEO a few months before a total fraud collapse and | everything is fine? There is 0% chance this was only happening | after he left. | scrlk wrote: | Good question. | | Sam Trabucco might end up as the equivalent of Lou Pai from | the Enron scandal. Left just in time before the whole thing | came crashing down and escapes all criminal charges. | bbarnett wrote: | To be fair, he could have realised all the blather was lie | after lie, talked to a lawyer, and was counciled gtfo. | | Sometimes you get pulled in, little by little, then you | wake up and realise what sort of situation you're in. | | And if he was legitimately thinking "wait, this is | wrong"... | dragonwriter wrote: | While I personally don't think--now--that SBF in | retrospect likely posed this kind of risk, the scale of | the grift is the kind of thing where someone pulling it | off is quite likely to have motive and means to cause | quite heinous outcomes to perceived threats. | | A quiet but apparently amicable distancing may be the | most someone feels safe doing. | Mistletoe wrote: | > Ellison's testimony claims that the fraud between FTX | and Alameda took place as early as 2019 and Trabucco | joined Alameda the same year. In crypto circles, the | Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) graduate is | suspected of being aware of financial misconduct if he | was the co-CEO for that long and if Ellison's story is | accurate. | hackerlight wrote: | > "wait, this is wrong" | | More like, "wait, this is getting too risky from a | personal legal/criminal standpoint". If he knew something | was off and he cared about someone other than himself, he | should have become a whistleblower. | Mistletoe wrote: | I'm wondering if he did and if he is going to be the | prosecution star witness walking down the aisle the first | day of the trial. It's too weird that there is no mention | I can find anywhere of a warrant for his arrest etc. | They've gone after everyone else like Gary Wang and | Nishad Singh and of course Caroline. | samstave wrote: | >unpopular opinion ;; | | SBF's parents deeply need investigation here - they are both | law proffs at stanford. | | THere is not a chance they dont have dirty fingers in his | dealings - where are their political donations from the money | SBF/Alameda. | | I hate how we talk about high level financial crimes (Trump | org, Biden Org, Holmes, SBF, etc - and we fail to ever look at | their children, parents, siblings, etc in their bubble for | similar investment windfalls, or donation channels/ammounts. | | - | | @lotsofpulp (I love pulp BTW, grew up with huge orange trees) | | The "we" is not just some no-face prosecutor, its everyone - | but "proof" that they arent looking into it is, have you ever | seen a Pelosi, Biden, Kushner child with massive grift based on | their familial insider trading knowledge that was exposed. | | Take Kushner as the primary example. So, we know that he | received billions (not just from Qatar), we know that his | family has a history of real-estate fraud, and everyone just | ignores all of this. | | This isnt a political comment : its a comment against the | financial frauds that are so massive throughout and we do | 'surface-level' looking into it. | | -- | | I cant believe I have to outline this for some.... | wmf wrote: | Don't worry; it's documented that money stolen from FTX went | to the parents. It's grinding slowly. | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | It is not an unpopular and I am sure parents are under | scrutiny as well if the law enforcement is doing its job at | all. | | If there is any hesitation in going after the parents of an | accused individual, it is that.. they are parents. The sins | of a child are not those of the parent and vice-versa, at | least in my book. We have our own scorecards as it were. | | But.. if there is proof of wrongdoing? No problem. | samstave wrote: | NOPE. | | If you are in the middle of a scandal of any of these | scales - EVERY SINGLE PERSON you've ever come in contact | with should be under scrutiny. | | And, as an example, when your father is in prison for | financial and real-estate fraud, your father in law has | decades of fraud cases against them, multiple impeachments, | indictments, etc... | | Caught on setting up back-channel comms | | Accept $2 billion dollars from a foreign government, and | basically walking through the USG as a ghost (as is | hunter)... you need to be brought down. | | Jared should be considered PRIME in such a case - such as | Kushner is. | | - | | Edit: | | I was not arguing against you. | | EDIT | | @A4ET8a8uTh0 | | No, I am saying that the defacto needs to be a scale of | frauds that literally is public knowledge and everyone | knows what the F it is. | | So if you're a Holmes, or a SBF or even a QWEST (Recall | them (that was tax fraud - not actual product fraud) Aside | from the fact that they setup a national fiber infra along | the tracks, and then had it basically siezed by cerberus, | such as MAI-west and PAIC.... | | Uh, I would love yo talk to others who know much about | internet cabling infra that was done through late 1980s and | such before I forget it as I get too old. | | Aside: | | Look at the vids of the fires in Maui and you see some | where they show pole-lines where there isa serious | wave/flux in the lower cables (the ones with the round | junction tubes -- and then the 4/6 wires at the top if the | pole.... | | The ones that are super FN wobbly are FIBER (perhaps some | coax, not sure on that) - but those splices are lower as no | electricitry risk to work on them. | | But they are heavier. So more pront to force wind to swathe | them out.... thus coms are down. | | We need all cell towers to have underground. | | Anyway - this disaster has ressurrected a F ton of my | former infra design exp.... | | Would love to discuss. | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | Do you see me arguing against charges where there is | evidence something is up? No. | | What I am saying is that any normal parent will protect | their kids. | lotsofpulp wrote: | > I hate how we talk about high level financial crimes (Trump | org, Biden Org, Holmes, SBF, etc - and we fail to ever look | at their children, parents, siblings, etc in their bubble for | similar investment windfalls, or donation channels/ammounts. | | Who is "we"? If you mean prosecutor, do you have a source | that they fail to look at the networks of those they are | prosecuting? | confoundcofound wrote: | You shouldn't be downvoted. | | I don't know if it's willful ignorance or what, but most | people can't grok the fact that children do not develop in a | vacuum. They are in most cases a reflection of their parents' | traits and values. Worse for SBF, it is entirely plausible | that they had a direct hand in enabling his fraudulent | behavior. They were politically-connected Stanford lawyers. | It would be foolish to dismiss the possibility of them | opening doors and providing cover for their son. | | Perhaps an extreme comparison, but I feel the same exact way | about adolescent school shooters. We are so quick to absolve | and sanctify the parents as if their child's violent | tendencies emerged suddenly and spontaneously. | fidotron wrote: | To be (sadly) honest this is exactly what I was thinking | when I wrote the comment at the top, but suspected it would | have been buried for being so direct. It is gratifying to | see some people here with guts to say what they think. | | As a society we have now a possibly exaggerated tendency to | ascribe any positive contributions by an individual to | their environmental circumstances (this is definitely more | true where I am in Canada, but it is becoming more true | over time in the US), while we have a tendency to assume | all the bad things can be blamed on a single leader to | absolve everyone else of all responsibility for their | supporting roles. A slight correction is in order imo. | JustLurking2022 wrote: | We don't know how aware they were of they initial fraud - | maybe not at all, maybe more than we've heard so far. | | That said, we do know that he committed several additional | offences, including the ones described in this article, while | under house arrest at their residence. That alone should | warrant further investigation and call their conduct into | question, along with their standing in the legal community. | rubyn00bie wrote: | This feels like the approach organized crime takes where they | go after everyone you know regardless of culpability. I'm not | saying they shouldn't be investigated if there is evidence | pointing to the fact, but it's very believable to me that | they never questioned it. | | SBF seems like the sort of person to flaunt their "success" | to side skirt questions. For those around him, I think they | believed it more than anyone, because the world was revering | him an undisputed genius. His parents pride, and background, | probably put blinders on any signals of nefarious activity. | They were also watching billionaire investors dump money into | FTX assuming they weren't total fucking idiots... but they | were. | | Smart, wealthy people, are often children of luck more than | ability and unable to discern between to two because their | entire existence inextricably interweaves the two. Look no | further than the demigod status American oligarchs have | despite being examples of capitalisms inefficiencies (there's | no cream to skim in perfect capitalism which is the real | source of their immense wealth). | cyanydeez wrote: | Trump: steal money from tubes, tamper at will. | | SBF: steal money from Wall Street, best not do anything | danielfoster wrote: | This is a win-win for everyone since it will also let SBF start | serving his sentence early. | swores wrote: | If he considered starting serving time early a win for himself | then he could've chosen not to be bailed. Therefore I don't see | how you can call it a win for him if it's not what he wants. | danielfoster wrote: | He'll be grateful to have some credit for time served once | he's sentenced. | wmf wrote: | Six weeks won't do much against 100 years. | colesantiago wrote: | Good. | | We need all crypto executives to begin sizing up jumpsuits for | their role in creating unregulated crypto companies that do | nothing other than scam people. | | The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they still grind these | scammers into jail. This is just the start. | Animats wrote: | Yes. So far, just for August: | | "August 10, 2023 -- Bittrex settles with SEC for $24 million" | | "August 7, 2023 -- Bitsonic CEO arrested for allegedly stealing | $7.5 million" | | "August 7, 2023 -- Rumors swirl that Huobi executives have been | arrested, exchange is insolvent," | | "August 7, 2023 -- Worldcoin warehouse in Nairobi raided by | authorities"[1] | | Crypto companies are running out of safe havens for unregulated | activity. SBF was arrested in the Bahamas. Mainland China shut | down most of the Bitcoin miners. Britain finally decided that | the Financial Crimes Authority, not the Gambling Commission, | had jurisdiction over crypto. The SEC and the CFTC stopped | feuding and decided to just handle it as ordinary crime. Cyprus | stopped being the safe haven for financial crime within the EU. | There's still Bulgaria and Israel, and maybe Russia, but | operating in those countries has its own problems. | | [1] https://web3isgoinggreat.com/ | TwoFactor wrote: | It is not true that all crypto companies are scams, and | especially not true that all crypto executives belong in jail. | phone8675309 wrote: | What actual, not theoretical, uses of crypto, aside from | unregulated speculation, do you believe are non-scam uses? | dcow wrote: | So the "probable cause" is that SBF is meeting with journalists | and sharing evidence that might bring into question the | credibility of the prosecution's star witness? Hmm I thought | witness tampering was more serious like trying to pay the witness | off or making false accusations or intimidating them something. | | I mean all this guy's co-conspirators have been bought off by the | prosecution to testify against him. I can't help but feel like | his action's are at least understandable. Unless he's supposed to | save all his ammo for the actual court case and attack the | credibility directly there. I'm obviously not a lawyer but I | didn't realize such subtle actions were considered witness | tampering... wouldn't we want to know all the details about a | witness? If there's real reason to be worried about someone's | credibility wouldn't we want to know about it? | | Without knowing better, I'd probably be fighting tooth and nail | in whatever way possible to not by martyred alone while my co- | conspirators walk with a slap on the wrist because that's how | criminal justice works, whether I deserved it or not. | | EDIT: just to be clear, I'm not making any statement as to | whether I agree or disagree with SBF or whatnot. I am just trying | to understand what actually happened here and surprised that | speaking with journalists falls under witness tampering. TIL. | cmpbl wrote: | I don't feel strongly on this, but you could read it as an | intimidation tactic: I have so much over you that I can print | your diaries in the NYT... just see what I have in my pocket if | you really cross me. | Marinus wrote: | Good. And I hope the NYT looses readers over their biased | reporting. | etc-hosts wrote: | I was wondering why SBF was not immediately jailed when he was | caught communicating with ex-FTX employees with Signal earlier | this year. | | Also the news reported he was installing VPNs so that he could | 'watch football online' or something about as stupid. | RegularOpossum wrote: | FTX advertised on fortune cookies at my local Chinese takeout | restaurant. I'm not sure what else needs to be said. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-08-11 23:00 UTC)