6 ms·
As others have mentioned, there is circumstantial evidence in that she was photoographed recently at a Lower Manhattan Starbucks quite close to the Southern Dis
by jmyeet 4y ago
As others have mentioned, there is circumstantial evidence in that she was photoographed recently at a Lower Manhattan Starbucks quite close to the Southern District of New York (who would handle any Federal prosectuion like this as it realtes to securities fraud).
But you have to look at the larger picture: The Federal prosectuion conviction rate is 95%. The Federal government is very good at getting prosectuions in cases they choose to prosecute. They tend to plea out cases that are riskier. A key tactic in doing this is they get one or more cooperating witnesses. That witness gets a better deal in exchange for their testimony that pretty much turns the case into a lock.
It's classic Prisoner's Dilemma. The first to take the deal is always the best off. Lawyers know it so if their clients are at risk, they'll tend to push their clients to be the one to take it. Ellison will most likely have direct knowlege of the situation and will be able to produce evidence such as emails and texts.
Importantly, she's not the main guy. It's SBF who opened up custodial assets to be used in that way (or so it seems). That's the primary offence here. It's a bit like how in a murder case the cooperating witness might be a driver or a witness but unlikely to be the actual shooter. They may get embroiled in a felony murder conviction otherwise thanks to the US-specific pecularity (and some, including myself, would call a miscarriage of justice) of felony murder but that's another story.
So Ellison fits the profile of an ideal cooperating witness, there's supporting circumstancial evidence and the fact that Federal prosecutors indicted SBF so quickly further suggests a cooperating witness with firsthand khowledge or they'd otherwise be mired in subpoenas for communications, conducting interviews and otherwise building a case.
A criminal indictment represents the end of the investigation, not the beginning. SDNY has already built their case to their satisfaction. People seem to think an arrest happens and the investigation continues. That's not how Federal prosecutions works.
- thelogicguy 4y agoA necessary conceit of the prisoner's dilemma is that they can't communicate, and therefore can't strategize together so that doesn't exactly apply here. It's just self preservation.
- jmyeet 4y agoThe prisoner's dilemma isn't predicated on the inability to communicate. It's predicated on (the lack of) trust. Put it this way: if you could lock in your decisions in an atomic fashion there would be no dilemma.
- rogers18445 4y agoPrisoner's dilemma has a Nash equilibrium where defection is the best move regardless of anything else that happens. If you change the game to be a repetitive 'prisoner's dilemma' with the same actors the best strategy would be tit for tat.
- saeranv 4y agoIf I recall correctly, the best strategy for repetitive prisoners dilemma *with communication*, is cooperation though.
- rogers18445 4y ago'with communication' does a lot of work here. tit for tat is a strategy where you start with the positive-for-both-parties strategy and then just copy whatever the other party did last time.
- nostromo95 4y agoYes but the only way repeated cooperation can be maintained is if players can “punish” defectors by also defecting for a certain # of turns (thus making the PV of breaking ranks and defecting < keeping cooperating for every player). SBF’s situation is different in that the game ends as soon as someone defects.
- vkou 4y agoYes, and this kind of prisoner's dillema isn't an accurate description of the hypothetical one. When it comes to the DOJ making a case against two people, both of them co-operating will likely get both of them harsher sentencing than what the defector will get. That's why underlings have strong incentives to defect, and defect quickly. (Defection is also rarely an option for the person at the top of the pyramid.)
- misiti3780 4y agoFor a deep drive, read The Chickenshit Club: https://www.amazon.com/Chickenshit-Club-Department-Prosecute-Executives/dp/1501121367 https://www.amazon.com/Chickenshit-Club-Department-Prosecute...
- dragonwriter 4y ago> A criminal indictment represents the end of the investigation, not the beginning. That's oversimplified, especially when dealing with wide ranging investigations into complex issues, as the many indictments (including successive, either superceding or in different districts or, in some cases, both) indictments of the same party in the course of, for an obvious recent example, the Mueller investigation attest.