6 ms·
Not a lawyer, but I'll piggyback to say that the inevitable indictment will likely require proving criminal intent, specifically that SBF knowingly and willingl
by panda-giddiness 4y ago
Not a lawyer, but I'll piggyback to say that the inevitable indictment will likely require proving criminal intent, specifically that SBF knowingly and willingly engaged in fraud. The Justice Department won't indict SFB until they have ironclad evidence demonstrating as much.
Consider a rushed indictment: SBF can always invoke his right for a speedy trial (i.e., the prosecutors must be ready for trial within 6 months of indictment). The prosecution would thus be in the ineviable position of simultaneously gathering evidence and building the case. Alternatively, they could wait to indict until after they've gathered evidence, which will give them ample time to meticulously build a case against him.
Since the harm of losing the case is greater than the harm of letting him roam free for a couple years, a delayed indictment seems like the clearly better option.
- bdangubic 4y ago-This did not age well :)
- panda-giddiness 4y agoHa! I guess I should've predicted a "couple days" instead of a "couple years". Still, I hope people now realize that "failure" to indict immediately is not the same as failure to indict.
- gizmo 4y agoAlso, there is considerable career risk involved for the prosecutor. This is a high-profile case and the prosecutors can say goodbye to whatever ambitions they have if they botch this.
- bobthepanda 4y agoDouble jeopardy also means no one gets to try again if it's fucked up.
- WandaVision 4y agoPlease. Some partner in A16Z is already working on the term sheet of SBF's next startup.
- cryptonector 4y ago> a speedy trial (i.e., the prosecutors must be ready for trial within 6 months of indictment). It's 71 days for federal trials, not six months. I know, it's a nit.
- panda-giddiness 4y agoThanks for the correction!
- mym1990 4y ago71 days vs 6 months is a pretty big difference though, less of a nit than you think!
- fullstop 4y agoI was summoned for a grand jury recently (not selected) and the entire process takes up to 18 months just for the potential indictment process.
- cryptonector 4y agoThe grand jury part of the process has nothing to do with the speedy trial clause because a) the grand jury part of the process is non-adversarial (so the potential defendant doesn't even know about it), b) it precedes indictment.
- dragonwriter 4y agoIt does have to do with speedy trial, if the accused is arrested prior to indictment, since speedy trial rights attach at the first of any of a number of places, including arrest. (In the federal system, there is a 30 day clock for indictment or information from arrest.)
- luxuryballs 4y agoI wonder if this counts for the people in DC jail for Jan 6, or is that some quasi-federal thing since DC is a district by itself? But then I’d think it was at least somewhat a federal matter, and a speedy trial, one would hope, should apply at any level.
- xmodem 4y agoWhat would you say is different about this case, or what about the environment has changed, as compared to Madoff in 2008?
- RC_ITR 4y agoMadoff admitted to his crimes so it was easy to arrest him right away. Ken Lay, who did not admit to crimes, took 3 years to be indicted and then was convicted.
- fmajid 4y agoAnd IIRC then died before penalties could be assessed so his widow got all of his ill-gotten gains scot-free.
- RC_ITR 4y agoSo $2.5 million isn't nothing (not by a long shot), but 'scot-free' is probably not a fair characterization, especially considering she has a conservator monitoring all her purchases now (to make sure she's not hiding cash).[1] Plus her sons, who actually turned their dad in: one killed himself over this, and the other died of lymphoma (won't comment on psychological stress, but you have to imagine the fallout from the scandal didn't help). [1]https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2009/06/ruth_madoff_must_make_do_on_12.html https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2009/06/ruth_madoff_...
- fmajid 4y agoI was talking about Ken Lay, not Madoff. Sorry if that was unclear.
- tiahura 4y agoNo he wasn't. He died before the appeal was finished so the conviction was vacated.
- deleted 4y ago
- SkyMarshal 4y ago> the inevitable indictment will likely require proving criminal intent, specifically that SBF knowingly and willingly engaged in fraud. The Justice Department won't indict SFB until they have ironclad evidence demonstrating as much. IANAL but I'm not sure that's true. I believe they can charge him with fraud or negligence. The latter carries lesser penalties, and everything SBF is doing now is trying to steer the inevitable indictment in that direction.
- _n_b_ 4y agoWhich exact federal crime do you mean by ‘negligence’ exactly? The various fraud statutes require intent.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- lazide 4y agoRelevant cite for what counts as intent to defraud for US federal stuff anyway. ‘Reckless indifference for truth or falsity’ and "The requisite intent under the federal mail and wire fraud statutes may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances and need not be proven by direct evidence." It’s not a super high bar to clear in this case. [https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-949-proof-fraudulent-intent https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...]
- _n_b_ 4y agoYes, and as former federal prosecutor and current white-collar defense attorney Ken White explains on Twitter, moving too fast also prevents them from using their best tools: flipping witnesses for lying and the Grand Jury. His really good thread starts here: https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1600877380683280384 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1600877380683280384
- iwillbenice 4y ago
- toomuchtodo 4y agohttps://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1600877380683280384.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1600877380683280384.html
- bin_bash 4y ago> specifically that SBF knowingly and willingly engaged in fraud He very well may go to prison for something other than defrauding FTX customers. See Al Capone for tax evasion and Elizabeth Holmes for defrauding investors (not patients).
- PaulHoule 4y agoFor instance some of the money may really be gone but if he has tries to hide any of it he can get busted for that act. I don’t think it is safe for him to travel to the US or many other jurisdictions right now.
- failbuffer 4y agoAlso Billy Mitchell of Fyre Festival... wire fraud instead of bilking his concert attendees.
- prottog 4y ago> Billy Mitchell of Fyre Festival You mean Billy McFarland. Billy Mitchell appears entirely innocent of this ;-)
- swyx 4y agodoes lack of intent waive responsibility for criminal negligence?
- artificial 4y agoDepending on how connected you are.
- rootusrootus 4y agoElizabeth Holmes was pretty well connected. She heads off to jail in April. Also, contrary to popular claims made here and everwhere else, the prison she's going to does in fact seem to have fences. With razorwire even.
- bobthepanda 4y agothere are different charges for intentional vs non-intentional crime, with usually more lenient sentencing for non-intentional crime, so the distinction does matter
- jklein11 4y agoThe legal definition of fraud requires intent
- rootusrootus 4y agoIf you take the feds at their word, they seem to consider 'reckless disregard for the truth' as a stand-in for intent.
- danenania 4y agoIs there anything to prevent him from moving to a country without a US extradition treaty in the meantime? That seems like a pretty big risk of waiting too long.
- tiahura 4y agoMake a list of the countries that don't have an extradition treaty. Then cross off the countries that have people you screwed or governments that might find it politically advantageous to prosecute you. And then cross off the countries that might send you back even without an extradition treaty. And then cross off countries that have worse internet than prison. What's left?
- danielfoster 4y agoHe just has to skip up and lie to the feds once. Then he can and will be prosecuted for lying to federal agents.
- SpelingBeeChamp 4y agoOr, more likely, he just won’t talk to them.
- ianhawes 4y agoI agree with you, HOWEVER, we have yet to see or hear rumors of any type of search warrant(s) being executed in the Bahamas or the US. As we saw with the Fyre Festival guy and other similar fraud cases, the government wants to move quickly to secure physical hard drives. In the case of that dude, Fyre happened on Thursday and they executed a search warrant at his apartment on Monday morning. It’s possible that grand jury subpoenas have already been issued and served, but that doesn’t typically generate the criminal intent evidence they will need for this case. We also know from former employees that routine business was typically discussed on Signal. That’s probably not a great sign for the government as they will need physical access to the devices used OR they will need to snag an iCloud (or other) device backup and grab the contents from there. Your points about a speedy trial and losing a case are generally valid BUT the DOJ can always opt to file a superseding indictment once he is in custody. I don’t know the full deal with Extradition from the Bahamas but it’s likely it will take some time (several months). Despite this being a white collar case the government will absolutely seek to keep him incarcerated given his flight risk and resources unaccounted for. Anything he’s embezzled from FTX in the span shortly before bankruptcy will be used by the DOJ as proof he has hidden resources. Remember, in pretrial arguments, they can come up with pretty far fetched or ridiculous arguments that have no merit or bearing later on. For example, in the case of Marcus Hutchins (the WannaCry kid), prosecutors argued he was potentially violent because he visited a shooting range several days prior. He was, in fact, in Las Vegas for DEFCON and went to one of many shooting ranges advertised on the Strip.
- dayvid 4y agoFor Elizabeth Holmes, the original articles which brought her down came out in 2015. She was indicted 2018. She was sentenced 2022. These things take time and the Fed is very thorough. I'm fairly confident SBF is going to get jail time. How much, IDK. It is fascinating to see someone craft their lying in real-time, though.
- moralestapia 4y ago>likely require proving criminal intent Yes, and there's plenty of that, have you read his Twitter timeline? Have you seen his interviews, etc? The guy's indicting himself, lol.
- bradgessler 4y agoFor the sake of conversation; what happens if it can’t be proven that SBF engaged in fraud? Can criminal charges for negligence be brought forth? I’d imagine there’s a ton of civili liability in this whole mess.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]