11 ms·

Could Sam Bankman-Fried go to prison for the FTX disaster?

26 points by abriosi 4y ago

hyperboreanChad 4y ago
norwalkbear 4y ago
He absolutely should but he's friends with too many rich and powerful people. His mother is connected deeply with the Biden Administration. Sam was very close to Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. FTX had articles on them by the WEF.
- hyperboreanChad 4y ago
- lupire 4y ago
  "showed up at the same party" is not "very close".
  - nativespecies 4y ago
    It's the new right wing boogeyman - crypto and Dem evil! Collusion!
- commandlinefan 4y ago
  > Sam was very close to Bill Clinton and Tony Blair So were Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislane Maxwell - it didn't save them.
  - seanw444 4y ago
    They gained mass media attention.
LatteLazy 4y ago
If you do something with money, or the internet there is a law somewhere in the US codex that you are breaking. So yes, of course he could. The US, rightly or wrongly, tries and often succeeds in enforcing it's laws internationally. Even in cases NOT involving US persons and with no apparent victims. So there is no reason to think this would be different. And that is ignoring the fact that FTX has (had?) a sub-venue called "FTX US" specifically for US persons, which has also failed. Also, there are a whole bunch of crimes (including wire fraud) where the definition of the crime makes intent so low, it is no barrier to prosecution. This is why you often see major frauds charged as more minor crimes: Fraud requires intent, Wire Fraud just requires a lie, a phone line and some profit.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
freddealmeida 4y ago
joenot443 4y ago
If he did, I think it'd be the first time a top 3 Democrat donor goes to prison. If I had to make a guess, I'd imagine the current government which he helped fund will be kind to him.
- phone8675309 4y ago
  If he's arrested I wouldn't be surprised if the guards that are supposed to enforce the suicide watch take a long break and come back to find him dead.
- starkd 4y ago
  Of course, there is the exception Harvey Weinstein. But his situation was difficult to sugar-coat.
- freejazz 4y ago
  Did you even bother to google something like "Top democratic donor jailed" before posting this?
  - joenot443 4y ago
    - freejazz 4y ago
      Your post is completely made up, and remains so, so I'm not sure why you are criticizing my comment. And yeah, Buck is a result that hits from the past few months. I'm just wondering what you actually did to reach the belief that big democratic donors don't ever go to jail? Like, any research at all?
      - joenot443 4y ago
        Did you read the comment before grabbing your pitchfork? It very clearly says "top 3", I'm not sure how you missed that. I'm criticizing your tone because it remains reprehensible and vile, the rules are right here if you need time to review them - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Since you seem to be an expert, please do inform the class. When was the last time an individual in the top 3 of the yearly donor list went to prison? Please be specific.
suslik 4y ago
What is the point in throwing someone who didn't commit violent crimes in prison? Punishment? Vengeance?
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  An even more interesting question is how HN justifies the reaction you're getting for this comment in this thread with the reaction you'd get for the same comment in one of our typical "complain about the court/prison system" threads. Only so much flagrant cognitive dissonance can sail under the flag of "the community is not homogenous and people pick and choose where to comment". We can pick the "law, order and punishment" route or we can pick the rehabilitation route but lets at least be consistent once we've chosen a path. Picking and choosing on a case by case basis enables all sorts of terrible miscarriages of justice.
  - lupire 4y ago
    You are saying that the people who think that smoking pot deserves less punishment than stealing $1B, are the dissonant ones?
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
      I'm saying that the people who advocate for or cheer on others advocating for "keep nonviolent criminals out of prison" in one context and then advocate for the opposite or don't let out a peep when others do in the case of a crime they don't like are exhibiting noteworthy amounts of cognitive dissonance. And IMO such cognitive dissonance is fundamentally incompatible with equality under the law. I'm also saying that "advocating for keeping nonviolent criminals out of prison in one context" and "advocating for the opposite in other contexts" happen to consistently to be explained by selection bias alone.
      - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
        Is it the same people though?

26 points by abriosi 4y ago

He absolutely should but he's friends with too many rich and powerful people. His mother is connected deeply with the Biden Administration. Sam was very close to Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. FTX had articles on them by the WEF.

hyperboreanChad 4y ago
lupire 4y ago
"showed up at the same party" is not "very close".
- nativespecies 4y ago
  It's the new right wing boogeyman - crypto and Dem evil! Collusion!
commandlinefan 4y ago
> Sam was very close to Bill Clinton and Tony Blair So were Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislane Maxwell - it didn't save them.
- seanw444 4y ago
  They gained mass media attention.

LatteLazy 4y ago

If you do something with money, or the internet there is a law somewhere in the US codex that you are breaking. So yes, of course he could. The US, rightly or wrongly, tries and often succeeds in enforcing it's laws internationally. Even in cases NOT involving US persons and with no apparent victims. So there is no reason to think this would be different. And that is ignoring the fact that FTX has (had?) a sub-venue called "FTX US" specifically for US persons, which has also failed. Also, there are a whole bunch of crimes (including wire fraud) where the definition of the crime makes intent so low, it is no barrier to prosecution. This is why you often see major frauds charged as more minor crimes: Fraud requires intent, Wire Fraud just requires a lie, a phone line and some profit.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

freddealmeida 4y ago

joenot443 4y ago

If he did, I think it'd be the first time a top 3 Democrat donor goes to prison. If I had to make a guess, I'd imagine the current government which he helped fund will be kind to him.

phone8675309 4y ago
If he's arrested I wouldn't be surprised if the guards that are supposed to enforce the suicide watch take a long break and come back to find him dead.
starkd 4y ago
Of course, there is the exception Harvey Weinstein. But his situation was difficult to sugar-coat.
freejazz 4y ago
Did you even bother to google something like "Top democratic donor jailed" before posting this?
- joenot443 4y ago
  - freejazz 4y ago
    Your post is completely made up, and remains so, so I'm not sure why you are criticizing my comment. And yeah, Buck is a result that hits from the past few months. I'm just wondering what you actually did to reach the belief that big democratic donors don't ever go to jail? Like, any research at all?
    - joenot443 4y ago
      Did you read the comment before grabbing your pitchfork? It very clearly says "top 3", I'm not sure how you missed that. I'm criticizing your tone because it remains reprehensible and vile, the rules are right here if you need time to review them - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Since you seem to be an expert, please do inform the class. When was the last time an individual in the top 3 of the yearly donor list went to prison? Please be specific.

suslik 4y ago

What is the point in throwing someone who didn't commit violent crimes in prison? Punishment? Vengeance?

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
An even more interesting question is how HN justifies the reaction you're getting for this comment in this thread with the reaction you'd get for the same comment in one of our typical "complain about the court/prison system" threads. Only so much flagrant cognitive dissonance can sail under the flag of "the community is not homogenous and people pick and choose where to comment". We can pick the "law, order and punishment" route or we can pick the rehabilitation route but lets at least be consistent once we've chosen a path. Picking and choosing on a case by case basis enables all sorts of terrible miscarriages of justice.
- lupire 4y ago
  You are saying that the people who think that smoking pot deserves less punishment than stealing $1B, are the dissonant ones?
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    I'm saying that the people who advocate for or cheer on others advocating for "keep nonviolent criminals out of prison" in one context and then advocate for the opposite or don't let out a peep when others do in the case of a crime they don't like are exhibiting noteworthy amounts of cognitive dissonance. And IMO such cognitive dissonance is fundamentally incompatible with equality under the law. I'm also saying that "advocating for keeping nonviolent criminals out of prison in one context" and "advocating for the opposite in other contexts" happen to consistently to be explained by selection bias alone.
    - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
      Is it the same people though?