5 ms·

SBF says “dishonesty and unfair dealing” aren’t fraud, seeks to dismiss charges

anigbrowl 3y ago
Ah the old 'you were a fool to trust me' defense.
- prepend 3y ago
  This reminds me of the account of Idi Amin, dictator of Uganda, Last King of Scotland, who complained to his advisor about there being no doctors available and it being the advisors fault to not prevent the expulsion of doctors. The advisor replied that he has counseled against the expulsion and argued not to do it. Amin replied that it was still the counselor’s fault because the counselor did not convince him of the argument. “You did not pursuade me.” [0] As played wonderfully by Forrest Whitaker in perhaps the best portrayal of someone disconnects from reality due to power and ego. [0] https://youtu.be/d8JZWfaffUA https://youtu.be/d8JZWfaffUA
  - SilasX 3y ago
    Did the advisor counsel against expulsion of doctors per se, or against the expulsion of an ethnic group that made up most of the doctors, without mentioning this aspect about them? If the latter, I’ve been in a similar situation, though without the ethnic cleansing. A co-worker insisted we use Slack’s thread feature, but couldn’t list any advantages to it over what we had been doing. Eventually, I discovered those advantages, and was (rightly IMHO) upset at the coworker for not being able to articulate what were actually good arguments for a useful feature. There’s a big difference between “don’t do that because I’m wise and I say so” vs “don’t do that because it has this specific consequence from this specific model” which later bears out. (Hence my rule: “Don’t tell me I’m wrong; instead, improve my understanding to the point you don’t have to.”) (Of course, in Amin’s case, you should have a general presumption against expulsions in the first place…)
dzonga 3y ago
this guy's attempt to force bend will into reality, is wow. just wish maybe I could experience 1 day in life - with this dude's mindset - where everything that's a lie is true, and everything that's true is a lie.
- tiedieconderoga 3y ago
  Why not try it? Wake up tomorrow, and decide that all of your most optimistic hopes and beliefs are objectively true. That harebrained idea that you've been nursing is a sure winner, and it could deliver 12.5% returns with enough backing. Sure, people will disagree with you about how much things cost, or when payments are due, or the terms of contracts that you signed. But if you're patient, you will eventually find people who'll readily believe a friendly smile and a dollop of gish gallop. They give up money easily, and they will often defend obvious cons once they have skin in the game. You'll always be looking over your shoulder, though, waiting for the other shoe to drop. Your brain will know the truth, even if you try to suppress it, and the gap between expectations and reality will only grow with time. Would you really want to live like that? Maybe for a day, I guess...
  - mc32 3y ago
    Very much in the style of Mr Bernard Madoff. But yeah, he’s got some gall.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    > Your brain will know the truth, even if you try to suppress it That's only a problem with people who force themselves to have that mindset. Some people probably honestly believe their own hype. Those are the people the poster wanted to be, the ones surprised when their cons blow up because they were blissfully thinking they were that brilliant the whole time.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tough 3y ago
Clown
- tanseydavid 3y ago
  ...or maybe Stand-Up Comedy?
wilg 3y ago
I'm so tired of articles taking legal arguments made by lawyers in the middle of court cases and turning them into clickbait headlines that pretty much only exist so people can have unrelated vents about their opinions of the person on social media. My guess is this guy did a bunch of illegal shit, but I just don't see what value this sort of "news" item has.
- BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
  Well I'm tired of dirtbags making dirtbag arguments in fraud/abuse cases and want people to get publicly punished for doing it instead of sweeping it under the rug.
  - wilg 3y ago
    Would love to know how much your opinion is based on the actual situation versus the headline or your imagination. Did you read anything past the headline? What is your basis for saying this is a dirtbag argument? Separately, wouldn't you say that losing your fraud/abuse case is public punishment for making dirtbag arguments? Thanks!
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    The lawyers for the defense have to say something. Usually at least one side is required to say something pretty morally wrong. That's not news. Somehow, I don't think absent this news story, you would have thought SBF was being swept under the rug. It's one of the more high-profile trials.
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      Why would one side have to say something morally wrong if they don’t actually believe it? What’s the upside?
      - sudosysgen 3y ago
        The upside is maybe the judge will act upon it favourably.
TrackerFF 3y ago
The way I read the argument (regarding bank fraud): SBF: Here's my honest application. Bank: Sorry, we'll have to decline your application. SBF: Wait, here's my updated (dishonest) application. Bank: Ah, looks much better. Approved. And now they're arguing that because the bank declined the application at step 2, he should have gotten some executive and deep due diligence special treatment, which likely would have resulted in him getting the application approved? But because he didn't, he had to lie on the next application. But said lying should be considered void, because there's a likelihood that he would have gotten the original application approved, had they just gone the extra mile for him? Sounds like his lawyers are grasping at straws. I've worked in a regulatory arm myself, and this feels even more flimsy than the people/companies that have prematurely started doing stuff, because they assumed that they'd get a green light, or win some type of appeal. He exposed the bank to risk, by providing a dishonest application. Seems pretty clear cut.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  “They didn’t try hard enough to understand they wanted to approve my application so I made shit up to make it more appealing.” Did I read that right? That’s hilarious. I actually believe that could have been going through his mind to make such a decision. Not that it’s excusable, of course, but... relatable, I guess.
- ihateyouall123 3y ago
  But why do you censor yourself?
- from 3y ago
  Well this interpretation of the bank fraud statute ("bank fraud" with no attempted or actual loss to the bank because they omitted something on compliance forms) came out of the SDNY/EDNY a few years ago and is one many find to be highly questionable.
anaganisk 3y ago
Aren't all corporations basically following the same mantra, I mean some companies active here on HN, constantly bait and switch, have misleading labels or policies. What's new here? I mean why exactly is this particular case so different?
Haga 3y ago
[dead]

Ah the old 'you were a fool to trust me' defense.

prepend 3y ago
This reminds me of the account of Idi Amin, dictator of Uganda, Last King of Scotland, who complained to his advisor about there being no doctors available and it being the advisors fault to not prevent the expulsion of doctors. The advisor replied that he has counseled against the expulsion and argued not to do it. Amin replied that it was still the counselor’s fault because the counselor did not convince him of the argument. “You did not pursuade me.” [0] As played wonderfully by Forrest Whitaker in perhaps the best portrayal of someone disconnects from reality due to power and ego. [0] https://youtu.be/d8JZWfaffUA https://youtu.be/d8JZWfaffUA
- SilasX 3y ago
  Did the advisor counsel against expulsion of doctors per se, or against the expulsion of an ethnic group that made up most of the doctors, without mentioning this aspect about them? If the latter, I’ve been in a similar situation, though without the ethnic cleansing. A co-worker insisted we use Slack’s thread feature, but couldn’t list any advantages to it over what we had been doing. Eventually, I discovered those advantages, and was (rightly IMHO) upset at the coworker for not being able to articulate what were actually good arguments for a useful feature. There’s a big difference between “don’t do that because I’m wise and I say so” vs “don’t do that because it has this specific consequence from this specific model” which later bears out. (Hence my rule: “Don’t tell me I’m wrong; instead, improve my understanding to the point you don’t have to.”) (Of course, in Amin’s case, you should have a general presumption against expulsions in the first place…)

this guy's attempt to force bend will into reality, is wow. just wish maybe I could experience 1 day in life - with this dude's mindset - where everything that's a lie is true, and everything that's true is a lie.

tiedieconderoga 3y ago
Why not try it? Wake up tomorrow, and decide that all of your most optimistic hopes and beliefs are objectively true. That harebrained idea that you've been nursing is a sure winner, and it could deliver 12.5% returns with enough backing. Sure, people will disagree with you about how much things cost, or when payments are due, or the terms of contracts that you signed. But if you're patient, you will eventually find people who'll readily believe a friendly smile and a dollop of gish gallop. They give up money easily, and they will often defend obvious cons once they have skin in the game. You'll always be looking over your shoulder, though, waiting for the other shoe to drop. Your brain will know the truth, even if you try to suppress it, and the gap between expectations and reality will only grow with time. Would you really want to live like that? Maybe for a day, I guess...
- mc32 3y ago
  Very much in the style of Mr Bernard Madoff. But yeah, he’s got some gall.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  > Your brain will know the truth, even if you try to suppress it That's only a problem with people who force themselves to have that mindset. Some people probably honestly believe their own hype. Those are the people the poster wanted to be, the ones surprised when their cons blow up because they were blissfully thinking they were that brilliant the whole time.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tough 3y ago

Clown

tanseydavid 3y ago
...or maybe Stand-Up Comedy?

wilg 3y ago

I'm so tired of articles taking legal arguments made by lawyers in the middle of court cases and turning them into clickbait headlines that pretty much only exist so people can have unrelated vents about their opinions of the person on social media. My guess is this guy did a bunch of illegal shit, but I just don't see what value this sort of "news" item has.

BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
Well I'm tired of dirtbags making dirtbag arguments in fraud/abuse cases and want people to get publicly punished for doing it instead of sweeping it under the rug.
- wilg 3y ago
  Would love to know how much your opinion is based on the actual situation versus the headline or your imagination. Did you read anything past the headline? What is your basis for saying this is a dirtbag argument? Separately, wouldn't you say that losing your fraud/abuse case is public punishment for making dirtbag arguments? Thanks!
- HWR_14 3y ago
  The lawyers for the defense have to say something. Usually at least one side is required to say something pretty morally wrong. That's not news. Somehow, I don't think absent this news story, you would have thought SBF was being swept under the rug. It's one of the more high-profile trials.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    Why would one side have to say something morally wrong if they don’t actually believe it? What’s the upside?
    - sudosysgen 3y ago
      The upside is maybe the judge will act upon it favourably.

TrackerFF 3y ago

The way I read the argument (regarding bank fraud): SBF: Here's my honest application. Bank: Sorry, we'll have to decline your application. SBF: Wait, here's my updated (dishonest) application. Bank: Ah, looks much better. Approved. And now they're arguing that because the bank declined the application at step 2, he should have gotten some executive and deep due diligence special treatment, which likely would have resulted in him getting the application approved? But because he didn't, he had to lie on the next application. But said lying should be considered void, because there's a likelihood that he would have gotten the original application approved, had they just gone the extra mile for him? Sounds like his lawyers are grasping at straws. I've worked in a regulatory arm myself, and this feels even more flimsy than the people/companies that have prematurely started doing stuff, because they assumed that they'd get a green light, or win some type of appeal. He exposed the bank to risk, by providing a dishonest application. Seems pretty clear cut.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
“They didn’t try hard enough to understand they wanted to approve my application so I made shit up to make it more appealing.” Did I read that right? That’s hilarious. I actually believe that could have been going through his mind to make such a decision. Not that it’s excusable, of course, but... relatable, I guess.
ihateyouall123 3y ago
But why do you censor yourself?
from 3y ago
Well this interpretation of the bank fraud statute ("bank fraud" with no attempted or actual loss to the bank because they omitted something on compliance forms) came out of the SDNY/EDNY a few years ago and is one many find to be highly questionable.

anaganisk 3y ago

Aren't all corporations basically following the same mantra, I mean some companies active here on HN, constantly bait and switch, have misleading labels or policies. What's new here? I mean why exactly is this particular case so different?

Haga 3y ago

[dead]