4 ms·

Seems to me people have completely unrealistic expectations of how financial crimes play out. This will take years to unwind. Pretty obvious the "why isn't he

Seems to me people have completely unrealistic expectations of how financial crimes play out. This will take years to unwind. Pretty obvious the "why isn't he in jail yet" screaming is coming from the same place as "why aren't I rich yet," on which this entire empire was built. This stuff takes time. He's very obviously going to prison. For context: Enron, whose operations and collapse caused way more negative impact on the public, fell over in 2001. It wasn't until 2004 that Skilling (CEO/COO/general bad actor) went into FBI custody. It wasn't until 2006 that he was convicted. Yeah, SBF is going out on a media tour and admitting to all his crimes, so hey maybe they should arrest him now - but why? He's clearly too dumb/narcissistic to run. Take him to court based on media appearances and he may claim he was hopped up on a boatload of amphetamines to the point of actual delusion. Then oops, guess we didn't gather all the hard evidence needed to convict so we lose our shot! Jeez, people.

tom-thistime 4y ago
It sounds like you probably know what you're talking about. That's going to cost you karma points.
- hungryforcodes 4y ago
  Hmmm
pram 4y ago
I think he'd be better off in jail, it would at least make him STFU
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Which is another good reason for prosecutors not to be pressing him right now! Why not just let him keep running his mouth?
  - coldtea 4y ago
    Doesn't sound like a consideration law enforcement has or should have... They either have something to get him for or not. And he might have connections or not. They wont have people that did crime running around just in case they reveal something more...
    - ethanbond 4y ago
      You don't think law enforcement considers whether it has enough evidence for a conviction prior to arresting someone, especially if that person is 1) actively producing more evidence of the crime by the minute, 2) not apparently a flight risk, and 3) not actively further harming the public?
      - coldtea 4y ago
        >You don't think law enforcement considers whether it has enough evidence for a conviction prior to arresting someone I do. Do you consider what I wrote amounting to the above? >especially if that person is 1) actively producing more evidence of the crime by the minute, 2) not apparently a flight risk, and 3) not actively further harming the public? A flight risk is 100% a thing. What is the opposite based on, that he is an idiot, or that even if he is he wont get some advice on that end? That's crazy talk.
lkrubner 4y ago
Exactly. Another example is Martha Stewart, who engaged in insider trading in 2001 but who didn't go to prison till 2004.
- tom-thistime 4y ago
  Sorry to be a noodge, but the insider trading charges didn't stick. Stewart got in trouble for obstructing an investigation. https://harbert.auburn.edu/binaries/documents/center-for-ethical-organizational-cultures/cases/martha-stewart.pdf https://harbert.auburn.edu/binaries/documents/center-for-eth...
WalterBright 4y ago
Look how long it took for Holmes to be put on trial.
stonemetal12 4y ago
Is the media tour a defense plan? Anyone who might be a decent juror is now exposed to news of the crime and prejudice against him.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
SilasX 4y ago
To which I have to keep linking this comment[1] which explains why Enron would reasonably take longer than FTX. If you don't want to read it, it's: A) Massive corporate hierarchy in which to untangle responsibility vs SBF and a few others, B) Complex accounting subtleties vs "lol we gambled customer deposits", and C) Lawyering up and denying everything vs blabbing to every journalist he can[2] In practice, the reason he hasn't been arrested is because of jurisdiction and the delays extraditing him, not because it's just so hard to make a case. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33724683 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33724683 [2] For which I would recommend this explanation why the interviews help to build a case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33873628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33873628
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Totally, I don't expect this to take quite as long as Enron, but I certainly wouldn't expect things to be much further after, what, 5 weeks?
mikejulietbravo 4y ago
I don't know what this has to do with my comment. I only said that the media and select politicians have been very soft in their questions and engagement with him. They have been considerably harsher with others in the tech and financial sphere who have done less.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
georgeplusplus 4y ago
>>>Seems to me people have completely unrealistic expectations of how financial crimes play out. This will take years to unwind. I remember Bernie Madoffs case unwinding rather quickly once news broke. The elephant in the room that needs to be addressed is that SFB was the second largest doner to the democratic party where the DOJ is headed by an democratic appointee. This is a very bad look for justice and the democratic party and the longer they let this drag out the worse it looks for them.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Bernie Madoff who faced credible allegations of fraud for years and only shut down when he straight up told his sons "it's one big lie?" I don't know that that's actually as "quickly" as it appears.
- tom-thistime 4y ago
  SBF is toast and everybody knows it. Sure, hopefully they'll track down any crooked campaign contributions that might have been made. Unfortunately many traditionally-crooked campaign contributions are legal now.
  - georgeplusplus 4y ago
    My point wasn't if the donations themselves were crooked or not. It's that he was giving large sums of money to the party that is supposed to be investigating him. It's a huge conflict of interest.
    - tom-thistime 4y ago
      Fair enough.
sangnoir 4y ago
> Seems to me people have completely unrealistic expectations of how financial crimes play out. This will take years to unwind. I doubt there can be a group more perfectly self-selected for seeing TradFi, media and the government as corrupt than today's crypto community. What they are experiencing is conformation bias, affirming things they always "knew" to be true all along, based on gut feel more than any real knowledge of how long investigations typically take.

tom-thistime 4y ago

It sounds like you probably know what you're talking about. That's going to cost you karma points.

hungryforcodes 4y ago
Hmmm

pram 4y ago

I think he'd be better off in jail, it would at least make him STFU

ethanbond 4y ago
Which is another good reason for prosecutors not to be pressing him right now! Why not just let him keep running his mouth?
- coldtea 4y ago
  Doesn't sound like a consideration law enforcement has or should have... They either have something to get him for or not. And he might have connections or not. They wont have people that did crime running around just in case they reveal something more...
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    You don't think law enforcement considers whether it has enough evidence for a conviction prior to arresting someone, especially if that person is 1) actively producing more evidence of the crime by the minute, 2) not apparently a flight risk, and 3) not actively further harming the public?
    - coldtea 4y ago
      >You don't think law enforcement considers whether it has enough evidence for a conviction prior to arresting someone I do. Do you consider what I wrote amounting to the above? >especially if that person is 1) actively producing more evidence of the crime by the minute, 2) not apparently a flight risk, and 3) not actively further harming the public? A flight risk is 100% a thing. What is the opposite based on, that he is an idiot, or that even if he is he wont get some advice on that end? That's crazy talk.

lkrubner 4y ago

Exactly. Another example is Martha Stewart, who engaged in insider trading in 2001 but who didn't go to prison till 2004.

tom-thistime 4y ago
Sorry to be a noodge, but the insider trading charges didn't stick. Stewart got in trouble for obstructing an investigation. https://harbert.auburn.edu/binaries/documents/center-for-ethical-organizational-cultures/cases/martha-stewart.pdf https://harbert.auburn.edu/binaries/documents/center-for-eth...

WalterBright 4y ago

Look how long it took for Holmes to be put on trial.

stonemetal12 4y ago

Is the media tour a defense plan? Anyone who might be a decent juror is now exposed to news of the crime and prejudice against him.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

SilasX 4y ago

To which I have to keep linking this comment[1] which explains why Enron would reasonably take longer than FTX. If you don't want to read it, it's: A) Massive corporate hierarchy in which to untangle responsibility vs SBF and a few others, B) Complex accounting subtleties vs "lol we gambled customer deposits", and C) Lawyering up and denying everything vs blabbing to every journalist he can[2] In practice, the reason he hasn't been arrested is because of jurisdiction and the delays extraditing him, not because it's just so hard to make a case. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33724683 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33724683 [2] For which I would recommend this explanation why the interviews help to build a case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33873628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33873628

ethanbond 4y ago
Totally, I don't expect this to take quite as long as Enron, but I certainly wouldn't expect things to be much further after, what, 5 weeks?

mikejulietbravo 4y ago

I don't know what this has to do with my comment. I only said that the media and select politicians have been very soft in their questions and engagement with him. They have been considerably harsher with others in the tech and financial sphere who have done less.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

georgeplusplus 4y ago

>>>Seems to me people have completely unrealistic expectations of how financial crimes play out. This will take years to unwind. I remember Bernie Madoffs case unwinding rather quickly once news broke. The elephant in the room that needs to be addressed is that SFB was the second largest doner to the democratic party where the DOJ is headed by an democratic appointee. This is a very bad look for justice and the democratic party and the longer they let this drag out the worse it looks for them.

ethanbond 4y ago
Bernie Madoff who faced credible allegations of fraud for years and only shut down when he straight up told his sons "it's one big lie?" I don't know that that's actually as "quickly" as it appears.
tom-thistime 4y ago
SBF is toast and everybody knows it. Sure, hopefully they'll track down any crooked campaign contributions that might have been made. Unfortunately many traditionally-crooked campaign contributions are legal now.
- georgeplusplus 4y ago
  My point wasn't if the donations themselves were crooked or not. It's that he was giving large sums of money to the party that is supposed to be investigating him. It's a huge conflict of interest.
  - tom-thistime 4y ago
    Fair enough.

sangnoir 4y ago

> Seems to me people have completely unrealistic expectations of how financial crimes play out. This will take years to unwind. I doubt there can be a group more perfectly self-selected for seeing TradFi, media and the government as corrupt than today's crypto community. What they are experiencing is conformation bias, affirming things they always "knew" to be true all along, based on gut feel more than any real knowledge of how long investigations typically take.