23 ms·

Judge sends Sam Bankman-Fried to jail over witness tampering

597 points by coloneltcb 3y ago

choppaface 3y ago
He had also been using a VPN to "watch sports" but the VPN was registered and located in the Bahamas. And had tried to offer a witness a "bag of cash."
- cma 3y ago
  All perfectly ethical if it can reduce shrimp suffering on a population basis by getting him free and able to buy a tank and as many sea monkies as possible to provide positive micro utility to each and every one.
  - choppaface 3y ago
    I never thought of it that way, but SBF is certainly mission-driven in some way. He even remembered to remove his shoe laces before the cops took him into custody.
- CobrastanJorji 3y ago
  Wait, doesn't using a VPN to watch sports imply that you are violating the terms of agreement for some website? Is that a reasonable argument you could make in a court?
  - danso 3y ago
    The judge cites this as a compelling reason to throw SBF in jail: > Judge Kaplan: This defendant tries to go right up to the line - his use of the VPN to watch a football game over an account he wasn't authorized, there it is.. > Judge Kaplan: He subscribed from the Bahamas and used a VPN as if he were in the Bahamas when he was in Palo Alto and could have watched it on public TV. It shows the mindset. All things considered I am going to revoke bail. https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/1690080018565627904 https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/169008001856562790...
    - jamiek88 3y ago
      >it shows the mindset… Ex-fucking-xactly. The law is not code and judges ain’t linters. Playing the legal equivalent of ‘not touching you, can’t get mad’ and pushing the line when you are already being given a privilege of bail is a bad idea.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Wait, doesn't using a VPN to watch sports imply that you are violating the terms of agreement for some website? No, unless the terms prohibit VPN use. > Is that a reasonable argument you could make in a court? Even if it were a civil offense against the website owner in question, yes, it would be a reasonable argument to make in court in a hearing over adherence to your bail conditions if it wasn't a violation of your bail conditions (which generally include “don’t commit any crimes” as well as any special conditions, but generally don't include “don’t commit any torts”.)
- verteu 3y ago
  I don't think SBF ever offered a witness a "bag of cash". The only reference to the phrase I can find is [1], where SBF's lawyer appears to be contrasting the case with another that has been submitted for reference/comparison: [SBF's lawyer Mark] Cohen: In one of the cases, the defendant offered a bag of cash to the witness. We don't have that here. [1] https://matthewrussellleeicp.substack.com/p/extra-bankman-fried-bail-revoked https://matthewrussellleeicp.substack.com/p/extra-bankman-fr...
JimtheCoder 3y ago
[flagged]
- Evidlo 3y ago
  This is the first time I've seen a prison rape joke on HN.
  - nickthegreek 3y ago
    Sadly, I don't think he was joking.
1letterunixname 3y ago
A product of an environment of infinite entitlement. Maybe he has a Twinkie defense?
- jonathankoren 3y ago
  To be That Guy™, the Twinkie Defense isn’t just some dumb meme. It was literal defense used in double murder trial. In 1978, San Francisco supervisor Dan White went into city hall and shot killed mayor George Moscone and supervisor Harvey Milk. At trial, he claimed diminished capacity because of a blood sugar imbalance because he ate some Twinkies. The jury ended up acquitting him of premeditated murder, and instead found him guilty of the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscone%E2%80%93Milk_assassinations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscone%E2%80%93Milk_assassina...
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    To be That Other Guy™, the problem with your contribution isn’t that it might be seen as pedantic, but that its also wrong. > To be That Guy™, the Twinkie Defense isn’t just some dumb meme. It was literal defense used in double murder trial. It is a dumb meme that has evolved around a misleading name a reporter gave to the defense at that trial, which has morphed into an myth about the nature of the defense that you now repeat as fact, despite linking sources explaining that it isn't. > At trial, he claimed diminished capacity because of a blood sugar imbalance because he ate some Twinkies. No, he didn't, as your own first source notes. His recent switch from being a health food nut to eating junk food (the context in which Twinkies were incidentally mentioned) was brought up as one of several external behavioral indicia of the longer tern mental breakdown the defense claimed he was going through, not its cause. And that longer term breakdown was context for the acute break they (and the psychiatrists called as expert witnesses) claimed White experienced that was the center of the diminished capacity defense.
    - hathchip 3y ago
      To be absolutely precise, the claim, as evinced by the diet of Twinkies, that he was depressed, was still an absolutely outrageous, abusive and mendacious justification for the premeditated homophobic murders that he committed in cold blood. But it is true that eating Twinkies was presented as the symptom not the cause.
tedunangst 3y ago
What happened to the theory that he'd never be jailed? The expert analysts were so confident.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  if he wasn’t an idiot he wouldn’t have been, cant control stupid unless the theory was about collusion in the executive branch and white house, then you still have an independent judiciary
- sillysaurusx 3y ago
  Same thing that happened with the expert analysis of LK99. It turns out that the real experts tend to be quieter.
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    In our overly connected times, it can feel like there's always two tribes, ours, and the one with the immoral charlatans & savages. Buying into that leads to unpleasantly toned one-man morality plays, based on obviously false claims, like there were people claiming to be experts and then they claimed it was guaranteed it was a room temperature superconductor.
  - Eji1700 3y ago
    I mean they weren't quiet, just drowned out. There's this mindset of trusting dreams/drama/personalities more than verifiable processes, and as communities like HN have shown, even people in fields associated with better logic clearly are willing to discard all the caution they'd normally use because they'd like it to be true and someone is saying it is. I feel like SBF actually represents this flaw wonderfully. A person who just does what he wants and has mostly been well enough off to dodge any sort of real consequences. He probably still thought he was doing nothing wrong and still does because the idea that he could be wrong is just not possible because he knows so much. Honestly my already low opinion of groups like WHO/SEC has dropped tremendously with recent events and how they were handled on drama/media reporting rather than actual evidence and science. This rush to the story is hellishly toxic to doing things right, and the vitriol people will spew if you conflict with them on it is gross.
fidotron 3y ago
Good. At this point SBF has become an amazing caricature of himself. I'm a very cynical old git, but even I have been amazed by the limited bounds of my imagination which is forever defeated by this story. Saying that, I do get the feeling he is now being scapegoated quite hard, and that probably serves to motivate his latest stupidities, but FTX required collective and not only individual madness. That must not get lost in all this.
- refulgentis 3y ago
  > FTX required collective and not only individual madness. I think this either conflates crypto with FTX, or alternatively, SBF being on trial with being scapegoated. The other execs admitted they did something wrong and are pleading guilty. This is individual madness
  - itake 3y ago
    Why stop at execs?
  - lkjdsfsdf 3y ago
    Nope, they were all crazy. Look at the things Ellison was writing and saying back then. And the money she was losing while claiming to be a savant. Look at the programmer who put in the code that was something like TRADE_IS_ALLOWED = HAS_POSITIVE_BALANCE || TRADER_IS_ALMEDA. Just because they're pleading out doesn't mean they are/weren't crazy.
    - babyshake 3y ago
      Not to be all woke, but "crazy" and "madness" probably aren't the right words for what happened here.
      - DonHopkins 3y ago
        Diabolic has religious connotations, but just the right religious connotations.
danielfoster 3y ago
This is a win-win for everyone since it will also let SBF start serving his sentence early.
- swores 3y ago
  If he considered starting serving time early a win for himself then he could've chosen not to be bailed. Therefore I don't see how you can call it a win for him if it's not what he wants.
  - danielfoster 3y ago
    He’ll be grateful to have some credit for time served once he’s sentenced.
    - wmf 3y ago
      Six weeks won't do much against 100 years.
      - School-Cotton 3y ago
        Do people really get life sentences for crimes that don’t involve causing death or physical harm to others?
        dpkirchner 3y ago
        Madoff did, but I only know that because it was remarkable enough to be big news.
        bemusedthrow75 3y ago
        Three-strikes lifers exist, yes -- a system where your most recent crime is punished as an extension of a previous crime, even if the time was served. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rummel_v._Estelle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rummel_v._Estelle
        3y ago
nova22033 3y ago
[flagged]
RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
> Members of the press, including counsel for The New York Times and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, had filed letters objecting to Bankman-Fried’s detention, citing free speech concerns. > The final straw, according to prosecutors, was Bankman-Fried leaking private diary entries of his ex-girlfriend, Caroline Ellison, to the New York Times. Ellison pleaded guilty to federal charges in Dec. 2022. > The government added that Bankman-Fried had over 100 phone calls with one of the authors of the Times story prior to publication – many of which lasted for approximately 20 minutes. It seems someone at The NY Times is very sympathetic to him.
- asu_thomas 3y ago
  > It seems someone at The NY Times is very sympathetic to him. It's more likely (and all but certain) that persons involved with him or his ventures have meaningful influence at the NYT. Sympathy has little meaning in the presence of structural interests.
- swores 3y ago
  > "It seems someone at The NY Times is very sympathetic to him." Has their coverage of him been positive? I've not read any of it so I don't have a clue, but in a hypothetical situation where you're a journalist at NYT who thinks he's a guilty & idiotic asshole, if he wanted to call you and start chatting away wouldn't you still take the calls and accept any documents he leaks to you despite not being sympathetic to him? It feels like to make the claim in your last sentence you need to show one or more articles that paint him sympathetically since his arrest, not just the fact that one or more journalists haven't refused to speak with him?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - verteu 3y ago
    Yes, very sympathetic IMO. Publishing parts of opposing witness Caroline's diary at his request, an act that was viewed as witness tampering [1]. Allowing him to speak at DealBook summit after he lost customer funds: "The DealBook Summit included Sam Bankman-Fried, who said he was “deeply sorry” about the collapse of FTX. Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Andy Jassy and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine also spoke." [2] In general you don't give a storytelling platform to your enemies. Ever seen a NYTimes article titled "Vladimir Putin: In His Own Words"? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/20/technology/ftx-caroline-ellison-bankman-fried.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/20/technology/ftx-caroline-e... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/20/technology/ftx-caroline-ellison-bankman-fried.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/20/technology/ftx-caroline-e...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
colesantiago 3y ago
Good. We need all crypto executives to begin sizing up jumpsuits for their role in creating unregulated crypto companies that do nothing other than scam people. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they still grind these scammers into jail. This is just the start.
- TwoFactor 3y ago
  It is not true that all crypto companies are scams, and especially not true that all crypto executives belong in jail.
  - phone8675309 3y ago
    What actual, not theoretical, uses of crypto, aside from unregulated speculation, do you believe are non-scam uses?
    - meepmorp 3y ago
      Buying drugs from the internet. Or are the kids not doing that anymore?
      - phone8675309 3y ago
        You don’t need crypto for this - I’ve got a friend that pays his plug on Venmo or CashApp just fine
    - mufti_menk 3y ago
      Having something you can transact with and store value that isn't completely vulnerable to your government's monetary and foreign policy/capital controls
      - knorker 3y ago
        So... Crime? You're describing "isn't touchable by laws". Which means crime.
Marinus 3y ago
[flagged]
Animats 3y ago
Courts seem to be getting somewhat tougher on white-collar crime. - This. - The Supreme Court just stopped the deal that would have let the Sackler family, the OxyContin pushers, off the hook personally. - Hunter Biden's no-jail plea deal was rejected, and he goes to trial. - Trump goes to trial, too.
- flutas 3y ago
  2/4 of those aren't exactly as you're thinking of them. > The Supreme Court just stopped the deal that would have let the Sackler family, the OxyContin pushers, off the hook personally. Note, they didn't stop the deal. They temporarily paused it while they hear the case later this year. [0] > Hunter Biden's no-jail plea deal was rejected, and he goes to trial. Wasn't directly rejected, the judged asked questions which gave answers that hunters team felt they didn't agree to, including that he is still the subject of ongoing investigations. [1] > At one point, Noreika asked whether the investigation was ongoing, to which Weiss responded that it was but said he could not share any further details. > Noreika also raised a hypothetical, asking whether Biden could face charges of failing to register as a foreign agent and whether the agreement blocks his prosecution on such a charge. The defense said it believed the agreement would prohibit him from being charged, and the prosecution then disagreed. > Clark was overheard telling a prosecutor, "Then we'll rip it up," most likely in a reference to the plea deal, as they discussed the disagreement during a brief break before he eventually relented. [0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-purdue-pharma-settlement-bankruptcy-sackler-family-oxycontin/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-purdue-pharma-set... [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/hunter-biden-expected-plead-guilty-criminal-tax-case-rcna96232 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/hunter-b...
- tylermenezes 3y ago
  > - The Supreme Court just stopped the deal that would have let the Sackler family, the OxyContin pushers, off the hook personally. Paused, and is reviewing an appeal after a court approved the deal. > - Hunter Biden's no-jail plea deal was rejected, and he goes to trial. It wasn't really rejected, there was no deal at all. The two parties didn't have the same understanding of a key term of the deal, the judge pointed it out, and then the parties weren't able to agree on that term.
compsciphd 3y ago
do the people who put up his bail money lose it due to him violating the terms of the bail and having it be revoked? or do they get it back now as its not needed anymore?
- duxup 3y ago
  My understanding is that generally you don't lose the bail money unless the person ultimately doesn't show up in court. There are exceptions and the judge has some discretion.
  - gemstones 3y ago
    I wonder if the credible threat of losing, say, $250 million might encourage people to ensure the defendant doesn’t engage in witness tampering!
- eastbound 3y ago
  I suppose if he showed up for jail, then the assets weren’t seized.
- loeg 3y ago
  No, he didn't skip trial.
- zerocrates 3y ago
  My understanding is that the default federal rule is that you forfeit for any violation, but that the judge has discretion to decide otherwise. I doubt you'll see movement on, for example, the parents' house, but I could imagine the monetary portion being forfeited. (Edit: and I've read since posting that there will be no forfeiture here)
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    It’s not like he actually ran away. This seems sort of reasonable.
  - soultrees 3y ago
TMWNN 3y ago
My understanding is that SBF's bail was put up by his parents (pledging their home) and family friends, at and out of Stanford, who put up their own funds. What happens to that?
- babyshake 3y ago
  Presumably it gets returned once he is behind bars. I'm not an expert though.
  - ars 3y ago
    It does get returned. The money is not a punishment, it's just to make sure he shows up when told to. If he doesn't show.......
duxup 3y ago
This wasn't his first round of meeting the judge about bail related violations too IIRC.
swores 3y ago
I wouldn't normally approve of anyone writing this sort of comment, but fuck it: Do not bother reading comments in this thread. The hot takes are already ridiculous, and I honestly don't know why I either bothered to start reading, nor why I bothered to point out the flaws in 4 different comments already. I can't actually imagine what interesting things could be commented about it at this time that isn't just rehashing people's opinions of him that've been said a thousand times already, so I'm closing the thread and won't be coming back to read the inevitable 1000 comments that are coming. I'm just leaving this comment here in the hope that, if others agree enough to upvote it, maybe some of you will be spared wasting time like I just have.
- paulcole 3y ago
  > The hot takes are already ridiculous, and I honestly don't know why I either bothered to start reading The ridiculous hot takes are why I start reading!
  - swores 3y ago
    That's fair enough, enjoy!
- ciabattabread 3y ago
  Come back when this thread has 1000 comments and the "more" link after the first thread.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  Hint: it's often a good idea to use something like hckrnews.com to read stories after a significant delay. That gives time for the middlebrow comments[1] that shoot quickly to the top some time to get rebutted and sink. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224
pavel_lishin 3y ago
How did he get $250m for bail to begin with?
- anonymoushn 3y ago
  He didn't have to put up $250m, it was sufficient for family and associates to pledge their houses which are worth much less than that
- wmf 3y ago
  Because bail numbers are fake. He put up a house and some other money but nowhere near $250M.
  - pirate787 3y ago
    Incorrect. You don't understand the system. There is collateral posted against a bond for the full amount; if he skips town the people who posted bail collateral are responsible for the full amount, $250 million.
    - vkou 3y ago
      A bank wouldn't lend people money on those terms, why on earth should a judge? If he doesn't have/can't borrow the full bail amount, I see no reason for him to be out on bail. Normal people don't get this kind of privilege.
      - manquer 3y ago
        Because we don’t have debtors prisons anymore ?[1]. A bank is private business they can choose how to go about their risk and reject anyone for any reason the criminal justice system needs to be fair to all the participants in it . —- [1] yes , there are plenty of people in jail only because they are unable to post bail or some other fees but that is not the same debtors prison
      - hathchip 3y ago
        Because courts and bail bondsmen have lots of scope for chasing, catching and detaining people that aren't available to banks.
RegularOpossum 3y ago
FTX advertised on fortune cookies at my local Chinese takeout restaurant. I'm not sure what else needs to be said.
- lake-view 3y ago
  I have one that has the FTX ad on one side and on the other side says "In hindsight, it was inevitable."
- Aleksdev 3y ago
  The fortune cookies tried to warn you!
  - jdkee 3y ago
    Didn't Larry David appear in a FTX commercial and in the commercial famously didn't buy into what they were selling? Aha! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWMnbJJpeZc&ab_channel=TheWorld%27sBestAds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWMnbJJpeZc&ab_channel=TheWo...
woodruffw 3y ago
Perhaps I shouldn't expect rational behavior from someone who ran a cryptocurrency exchange, but this decision is utterly bewildering: judges tends to take even the perception of witness intimidation seriously, and there's no light in which releasing someone's diary (versus than attempting to have it admitted as ordinary evidence) isn't meant to be intimidation.
- gitfan86 3y ago
  But that was the whole logic of crypto. "The USD is going to go to zero someday so I might as well steal everyone's USD today"
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    For real though. Give me all your soon-to-be-worthless real dollars in exchange for magic beans. But uh, if the beans are so good, why do you want my dollars?
- themodelplumber 3y ago
  He is an interesting person in that way. I've been casually analyzing the situation and his actions from a personality theory point of view. It's clear that SBF doesn't look at business/legal logic as an objective "thing" with special givens and nomenclature to which one must adhere, as many of us do. He sees it more as a unique series of isolated situations with their own unfolding logic. He is taking the puzzler's approach. (Is this related to his being raised by people with legal experience? The most experienced in a given field are often the least likely to give the most definite/standard answers...things "tend to depend") But, for that same reason, he'll also tend to entrap himself for lack of look-ahead knowledge relating to precedent and legal practice. Broad precedent and ethics are essentially off one's radar, if one really leans into the "I can solve it myself" logician style. That's a huge risk for someone like him: He's going to look like he's trying to reinvent the wheel, so to speak, of what it means to be a defendant in a risky position. People with basic knowledge will be left utterly confused as to why he keeps messing up, this person who is apparently kind of a genius in a way? Yet it's still clear that his executive logic is extremely resilient and active. This is not the type of personality to go "based on legal history, I'm a jerk and I'm screwed, might as well give up." In fact I'd guess that his natural openness to various ideas would prevent him from making definite moral conclusions about his choices. He is probably going to keep grinding at this position of his until some chain of things starts to work out. Some might make the _moral_ or _predictive_ conclusion that he should do otherwise, but this is a _rational_ person in the sense of attention to the typical social bell curve. In that particular bell curve, it's _irrational_ to not defend yourself and fight for yourself, especially if you think the public record is completely off, wrong, etc. His answer to "why don't you head over to Google for even better legal assistance" might just be, "I'm learning and analyzing my way through this from first principles, and for that I need my own brain, some logic, and a bit of luck." In the end, you don't necessarily need the look-ahead knowledge, especially with the right people on your side...even though it can _really_ help to not make these kind of obvious blunders in that direction. (This is looking at personality and his actions in that context, not so much a good/bad moral analysis)
efficax 3y ago
i know it's been said before but why did anyone ever think this guy was responsible enough to handle all that fucking "money"
- krona 3y ago
  He stood on stage with all the right people said all the right shibboleths!
  - BSEdlMMldESB 3y ago
    should have been a politician!
  - dontupvoteme 3y ago
    and critically had the right background.
- thatsagreatcomm 3y ago
  Well-spoken and connected dude with MIT and Jane Street on his resume
  - cj 3y ago
    Talking to Jim Cramer on CNBC with 8 computer monitors behind him. Super articulate kid who got in with the right crowd.
    - Waterluvian 3y ago
      A high charisma stat can get you far until someone calls your bluff and you actually have to fight and know stuff.
      - Freedom2 3y ago
        Appropriate, given the recent release of Baldurs Gate 3! Bravo for the comment.
monero-xmr 3y ago
This guy is going to jail for at least 20 years. He knows it too, and is doing crazy stuff because that’s all he has left. He is going to sell his life story to the highest bidder and set up a Twitter handle where he can post via snail mail like Ross Ulbricht. SBF is a total piece of shit and deserves whatever he gets.
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  I have this (unresearched) hypothesis that people who enjoy having a lot of control will do anything they can to continue to behave that way. Even if you’ve taken away all the levers except the one labelled “kick self in the groin” they will pull it. I anticipate the former president doing this a lot in the next year. Any time the right move is to do nothing, he will find a way to do literally anything.
  - nullc 3y ago
    I don't know that you need the condition "people who enjoy having a lot of control" -- having other people or forces take control of your life is a hard situation for almost anyone. People respond as you say-- if hurting themselves is the lever they have left, they'll often pull it. And sometimes that means "hurting" in a very literal sense, like cutting themselves.
  - VHRanger 3y ago
    You're describing a dysfunction of the dopamine system You can see it in people with unmedicated ADHD for instance, who prefer the stimulation of something toxic (a fight, drama, etc.) To boredom, even fully aware of the consequences of starting a fight.
drfuchs 3y ago
[flagged]
- bdcravens 3y ago
  The right to free speech never means freedom from consequences of that speech.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - astrange 3y ago
    Yes it does. Consequences are the only thing you can be free from.
    - Zetice 3y ago
      No it doesn’t, you can easily be prevented from speaking in the first place.
      - pessimizer 3y ago
        Are you talking about cutting people's tongues out, or prior restraint? Because you don't know who to restrain if they haven't already said something. As a consequence of things you've said in the past, or things that you have just said and have not yet been distributed, you can have that distribution limited or prevented. All of them are consequences.
        Zetice 3y ago
        If your point is causality exists, okay. If your point is that the 1st amendment is an absolute freedom of speech, you couldn't be more wrong.
      - astrange 3y ago
        And in this case he is being prevented from future speech acts, demonstrating another category of things it doesn't protect you from.
tdhz77 3y ago
[flagged]
dbg31415 3y ago
Anyone who didn’t see from a mile away that this guy is trash was intentionally closing their eyes. Pretty cringey how much press he got.
- zedadex 3y ago
  > see from a mile away that this guy is trash Actually possible, given the billboards lol
sublinear 3y ago
Weirdly I think he's trying to protect her from a harsher sentence now that they're both fucked. Just because she fully cooperated and tells a sad story doesn't mean she isn't guilty.
- LZ_Khan 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure he's trying to ruin her career for good, ala "scorched earth strategy." She admits in her diary that she feels incompetent for leadership, having a natural tendency to defer.. etc. Now no firm will ever think about hiring her in an important position.
  - jonas21 3y ago
    What hypothetical firm would say, "she pleaded guilty to multiple felony fraud charges, but hey, let's give her a chance anyway. Wait, what's this? She wrote in her diary that she has doubts about her leadership ability? Never mind!"
    - radicaldreamer 3y ago
      I'm pretty sure that part of her plea bargain with the SEC charges will be a lifetime ban from the financial industry and its unlikely any other major company would hire her either. I think the best path forward is probably memoir and the redemption story circuit and maybe some kind of fraudster turned consultant gig. I'm sure there are already agents trying to get her to auction TV and Film rights to her side of the story.
      - sublinear 3y ago
        > "fraudster turned consultant gig" This is exactly what I meant and it happens too often. If she doesn't serve much if any time for this, she continues her career as an "expert" and that's not enough of a punishment. She's just as guilty as Sam Bankman-Fried. That she cooperated is irrelevant. That she plays dumb should make it worse for her. She will not be sentenced until the investigation is completed and her cooperation is no longer required. I'm hoping they make the right call and give her at least the same as him.
dcow 3y ago
So the "probable cause" is that SBF is meeting with journalists and sharing evidence that might bring into question the credibility of the prosecution's star witness? Hmm I thought witness tampering was more serious like trying to pay the witness off or making false accusations or intimidating them something. I mean all this guy's co-conspirators have been bought off by the prosecution to testify against him. I can't help but feel like his action's are at least understandable. Unless he's supposed to save all his ammo for the actual court case and attack the credibility directly there. I'm obviously not a lawyer but I didn't realize such subtle actions were considered witness tampering... wouldn't we want to know all the details about a witness? If there's real reason to be worried about someone's credibility wouldn't we want to know about it? Without knowing better, I'd probably be fighting tooth and nail in whatever way possible to not by martyred alone while my co-conspirators walk with a slap on the wrist because that's how criminal justice works, whether I deserved it or not. EDIT: just to be clear, I'm not making any statement as to whether I agree or disagree with SBF or whatnot. I am just trying to understand what actually happened here and surprised that speaking with journalists falls under witness tampering. TIL.
- cmpbl 3y ago
  I don't feel strongly on this, but you could read it as an intimidation tactic: I have so much over you that I can print your diaries in the NYT... just see what I have in my pocket if you really cross me.
- maxbond 3y ago
  > Unless he's supposed to save all his ammo for the actual court case and attack the credibility directly there. Yes, that is how he could attack the credibility of a witness without ending up in hot water. He would have to introduce it into evidence, and hazard the court rejecting it. If it was accepted, then yeah, they could tell the jury about Ellison feeling like she may not be cut out the run Alameda (for all the good that would do, I suspect not very much). If you try to bypass this process unilaterally, then the court isn't going to give you the benefit of the doubt.
yankput 3y ago
[flagged]
- electriclove 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - yankput 3y ago
    Eh HN karma is not what I live for :)
    - pessimizer 3y ago
      It's worth infinitely less than skee-ball tickets.
  - rvz 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- timeon 3y ago
  Can you elaborate?
ladon86 3y ago
House arrest? Multiple friends of mine have reported spotting him at SFO over the last few months. Here's a video from someone (who I don't know) from late March: https://twitter.com/sidtriv/status/1641641533240905728 https://twitter.com/sidtriv/status/1641641533240905728
- ttul 3y ago
  He was permitted to travel to New York under the terms of his bail to meet with lawyers.
bandyaboot 3y ago
[flagged]
- bourgoin 3y ago
  *inspects image* > that's a shame that's a shame ;)
  - bandyaboot 3y ago
    *hangs head in shame*
- layer8 3y ago
  Parse error: unexpected character '“' (U+201C)
jfghi 3y ago
I wonder if the series of events will have any precedence or influence for other notable trials going on at the moment.
primitivesuave 3y ago
They're going to study SBF in law school some day. In the same way a computer science professor would emphasize automated testing to catch edge cases, a legal professor will emphasize that no matter how intelligent and well-connected your client seems, they may still be suffering from "edge case" delusional behavior that destroys their case. This is the same guy who dialed into tech conferences and made provably false statements after the public collapse of FTX and after his parents (both law professors) had retained counsel. And yet, nobody thought to explain to him how easily he might get caught up on witness tampering and obstruction of justice charges if he continued making public statements.
- mataug 3y ago
  Someone may have explained to him that this was witness tampering, but as my mother likes to say “went into one ear came out the other” for SBF. He’s rarely faced consequences for his actions until now.
  - jjoonathan 3y ago
    Yeah. On his PR tour he repeatedly made public statements that will negatively impact his defense; there's no way his council didn't try to shut that down. SBF isn't listening to his lawyers.
    - cdchn 3y ago
      Much like anybody who tries to 'explain things' to the cops he thought he could talk his way out of it, or into a better position.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- akira2501 3y ago
  There are plenty of better examples. Sam is essentially just a common crook. He put his hand in his own companies cookie jar. This idea that he's going to "be studied" just plays into his own paid for media created mythos. This is the same guy who tried to make "effective altruism" part of his image. That was a pretty strong signal that the outcome we all witnessed was highly likely.
elicash 3y ago
I think the standard way our justice system treats defending yourself publicly as witness intimidation is faulty. In the previous instance, his talking to journalists should be protected first amendment activities. And then later, with the diary, I don't think his intent was to intimidate her or to change her testimony, but rather to defend himself to the public. I don't think those two things are the same. On the other hand, I'm very open to the idea that stealing someone's diary and publishing it is itself illegal. I'd want to know more there. Also, what I personally believe to be an overly-expansive definition of witness intimidation is pretty standard and he should be held to the same rules as others. So while I think the justice system generally needs to change on this, I think the judge is correctly applying the normal practice here as they would to anybody else.
- maximinus_thrax 3y ago
  > I don't think his intent was to intimidate her It doesn't matter what the intent is. She's a witness and trying to pull this shit is a huge no-no, as the judge rightly ruled. He should have known better.
  - elicash 3y ago
    Your response doesn't contradict anything I wrote. I wrote that the judge was correct in sending him to jail for witness intimidation because they should apply the same standard they do in every other case. I just don't like the standard! Edit: Quick correction. I suppose your first sentence does disagree with my view on whether intent matters. But I'm pretty sure "intent" shows up in the statute. You also seem to disagree with the prosecutor who argued that intent DOES matter and that his intent here was to intimidate the witness.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  You don't have the right to defend yourself in public while awaiting trial. He doesn't even have the right to leave his house; the idea that his speech can't be restrained is fantasy.
  - 3y ago
voz_ 3y ago
I'd love to see this clown destroyed
NetOpWibby 3y ago
What a headline, I literally LOL'd.
radicaldreamer 3y ago
The hardest part for him is going to be the dopamine withdrawals. He's supposed to be in a drug treatment program but with his behavior during house arrest, who knows if his parents have any disciplinary skills to make sure he was clean before his bail was revoked.
- bobmaxup 3y ago
  Not trying to lend to your theory, but I found a interesting document: https://www.bop.gov/resources/pdfs/detoxification.pdf https://www.bop.gov/resources/pdfs/detoxification.pdf > Inmates with a dependency on cocaine or other stimulants generally do not require treatment in an inpatient setting. The cessation of this substance does not always cause specific withdrawal symptoms. However, symptoms may be severe enough to require clinical intervention. For most inmates who use cocaine or other stimulants, medications are not ordinarily indicated as an initial treatment for withdrawal or dependence, as none have shown efficacy. Inmates are treated symptomatically. > SAMHSA recommends that patients withdrawing from stimulants should be monitored closely for depression/suicidality, as well as prolonged QTc intervals and seizures, which may be additional complications of stimulant withdrawal. An EKG is recommended during cocaine withdrawal to monitor for cardiac complications.
  - VHRanger 3y ago
    He wasn't just on amphetamines, he was also on MAOIs which are stronger stuff
    - 3np 3y ago
      Characterizing MAOIs as "stronger stuff" than amphetamines is just nonsense and I don't see how the context here would make it either meaningful or relevant.
      - VHRanger 3y ago
        Using selegiline as a stimulant has a lot more risks (some irreversible!) and side effects than just using an amphetamine or methylphenidate like anyone else seeking the same effect would. It certainly explains the tremors you saw him have in interviews - you need a lot of abuse with amphetamines to get to that level of side effect. In general it speaks to a level of personal recklessness you don't even see in the typical cocaine guzzling white collar criminal.
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
So what's with $250m bail? Will the judge take it? Or only if he escapes?
- vkou 3y ago
  1. There never was $250m. 2. Generally speaking, you only lose your bail money if you don't show up to court when a judge tells you to.
- lordfrito 3y ago
  The 10% is non recoverable I believe. This means his parents essentially paid $25m to keep him out of jail for 6 months.
gigatexal 3y ago
Is his brain fully formed? Does he have functioning critical thinking skills? Is he just that dumb? Surely his counsel and others are advising him to shut his damn mouth …
- justrealist 3y ago
  He's on crazy stimulants.
curiousllama 3y ago
There was a 250M bond posted, IIRC - does this mean his guarantors lose the money?
- throw03172019 3y ago
  Would they only lose the money if he fled and didn’t appear for court?
- drexlspivey 3y ago
  not if he shows up
- ilc 3y ago
  I don't think so. He hasn't fled. The 250M is to make sure his butt shows up.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  I may be wrong, but I believe that bail forfeiture would be a separate order from revocation/remand, with its own hearing. The summary of the revocation order (the full document isn't up yet on CourtListener) refers to remand to custody but not forfeiture. I think it can occur for both failure to appear and other violations of bail conditions, but I don’t know, on practice, how common forfeiture is for violations of other bail conditions.
- pseingatl 3y ago
  They only guaranteed the personal surety bond. No one put up any cash. There was no corporate surety bond imposed as a condition of release.
  - pseingatl 3y ago
    https://twitter.com/al_mu7ami/status/1690124304447344641?s=20 https://twitter.com/al_mu7ami/status/1690124304447344641?s=2...
- pseingatl 3y ago
  https://twitter.com/al_mu7ami/status/1690124304447344641?s=20 https://twitter.com/al_mu7ami/status/1690124304447344641?s=2...
lavezzi 3y ago
Never should have been allowed out. Absolutely braindead move from the judge.
- joshmn 3y ago
  Federal system presumes all individuals charged with a crime be out of custody.
smsm42 3y ago
Do I get it right that all SBF had to do to stay out of jail (at least until trial) is exactly nothing, and he still failed at that?
- DetroitThrow 3y ago
  Yes, surprisingly. He had fairly strict communications restrictions as part of his bail deal, only to harass a witness indirectly in the press in some of the few ways left he could contact the outside world.
  - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
    *unsurprisingly The dude is not a textbook narcissist, and if he's a sociopath he does a very good job of hiding it, but his grandiosity and self-certainty is off-the-scale. This is exactly what people like him (self-myth-believers) do.
- Aleksdev 3y ago
  Yes, for whatever reason he went on clubhouse and started explaining his side of the story. That’s a nightmare for most lawyers.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  Doing nothing is very hard for most people. Doing nothing takes discipline!
- influxmoment 3y ago
  He's an entitled psychopath with two Stanford law professor parents. I'd say he's been getting away with things this whole life and doesn't feel the need to stop now. Maybe reality will catch up with him when the sentencing happens
gentle 3y ago
I'm fascinated by how so many comments here seem to assume that Bankman-Fried is playing some long strategy, when the simplest answer is that he's mentally ill and can't stop himself from engaging in compulsive behaviors, even when he's been appraised of the consequences, repeatedly.
- H8crilA 3y ago
  Elon Musk vibes. For example when he was shilling dogecoin, or bragging about not caring at all about the $420 SEC settlement. It's oddly fun to watch such exceptional narcissists, both when they rise and when they fall. They're so invested in their image.
  - chmod600 3y ago
    Elon has been important in at least 3 major companies that have real products that are delivering real value today. I can't speak to his mental health, but SBF is simply not comparable.
    - harry8 3y ago
      I've loathed Elon since the Thai cave fiasco but I think this is entirely fair.
      - H8crilA 3y ago
        It was a judgement of personality traits/disorder. Not of commerical success. SBF, Musk or Trump behave like privileged children that believe rules/law do not apply to them. They want everyone to know and admire them for their awesomeness, in fact it's their awesomeness that buys them an infinite number of get-out-of-jail cards. Yes, Musk is the most useful out of all of them, by a mile. Still, the personality type/disorder is the same.
    - IOT_Apprentice 3y ago
      Important in being a source of money. The rest? Not so much.
renegade-otter 3y ago
At some point it becomes fascinating to study what makes a person this smart (allegedly) so resistant to learning from a simple actions -> consequences chain of events. This guy is supposed to be good at logic? But then again, they had millions of dollars unaccounted for just sloshing around because "it's just how business works". So there is that.
- danparsonson 3y ago
  Hubris. Nobody's immune to it, and being smart can make it worse as everyone around you reinforces it.
- jgilias 3y ago
  He’s just a sharp fool. It’s someone who is good at the kind of smarts that lets them multiply numbers quickly, and this has led them into a trap of believing that they are a genius who’s never wrong. These people have very rigid mental models of the world, as they tend to not question their own understanding.
pseingatl 3y ago
For those with questions about federal bonds, return of money etc. check this out: https://twitter.com/al_mu7ami/status/1690124304447344641?s=20 https://twitter.com/al_mu7ami/status/1690124304447344641?s=2...
- SilasX 3y ago
  That says nothing about return of money, let alone cetera.
popilewiz 3y ago
[dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
etc-hosts 3y ago
I was wondering why SBF was not immediately jailed when he was caught communicating with ex-FTX employees with Signal earlier this year. Also the news reported he was installing VPNs so that he could 'watch football online' or something about as stupid.
- once_inc 3y ago
  One word: money. If you have enough of it, the rules can be bent, or broken altogether.
  - cynusx 3y ago
    It's more about inefficiencies in the judicial system, every infraction is a new crime that has to be researched and evidenced and ruled upon which provides avenue for delaying actions by lawyers. The justice system is designed to defend the innocent, not to aggressively pursue and harass the guilty. SBF's is living on borrowed time as the cases make it through the legal process.
  - xdavidliu 3y ago
    does he currently have "enough money"?
    - pigeonhole123 3y ago
      His family and he is extremely well connected, I'm sure they can scrape together some money for lawyers
    - samstave 3y ago
      He was likely funneling billions(?) to Alameda girl, who apparently absconded with a bunch... and to his parents, who are already wealthy law professors at stanford, and he gave hundreds of millions to political bribes.
- plaguepilled 3y ago
  While I agree that there is an excess of evidence available to jail SBF with ease - and he should be jailed without question - I am bit unsure about your VPN comment. Specifically, if Sam uses a VPN after having communication restrictions put in place around what he can say, is that inherently suspicious to a court? I would have assumed it is insufficient on its own but could be presented as the means for breaking court order if shown with other supporting evidence. I'm not a lawyer mind you, so this is just me trying to understand it for myself.
jacknews 3y ago
Wow quite a character.
tonetheman 3y ago
[dead]
xdavidliu 3y ago
Here's the resulting New York Times article from the Google docs that SBF shared. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37095093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37095093
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > His mother was laughing out loud in court in the Bahamas when SBF was being denied bail Could someone with a background in trial law explain why she would do this? Is the entire family just bad at emotional regulation? If so, is this common among professors at a top-3 law school?
  - fuckyah 3y ago
    [dead]
  - dkqmduems 3y ago
    It's a simple case of affluenza. This diagnosis brought to you pro bono by marc tessier lavigne.
  - dannyobrien 3y ago
    I've no background in trial law, but people often react apparently inappropriately in moments of shock. I guess judges and trial lawyers are familiar with it. https://www.scienceofpeople.com/nervous-laughter/ https://www.scienceofpeople.com/nervous-laughter/
    - tiffanyg 3y ago
      My personal motto is: "Inappropriate laughter, there's nothing more appropriate." Honestly, if you want to distinguish "human" from "lizard in a human skin suit", "animal" (a la Gom Jabbar), or "machine"*, the "Rubber Chicken Bearing Test" (https://youtu.be/9AqqmjGzeTQ https://youtu.be/9AqqmjGzeTQ) is your aqua regia**! * Forget the "Turing test" ... *** ** Or, aqua humanus ... or aqua homo ... to put it in words the channers undoubtedly lurking here might understand :) *** More seriously, probably forget any "test" ... aside from "probing all the way through" https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/thinkingMeat.html https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/think... ... though, even that seems likely to be inaccurate ... https://youtu.be/Umc9ezAyJv0 https://youtu.be/Umc9ezAyJv0 ...
tacker2000 3y ago
This guy just keeps on giving. Incredible.
wonderwonder 3y ago
This is the strangest story. Sam is clearly autistic, highly intelligent and was likely suffering form a variety of other maladies, many of them [I had thought] induced by massive overuse of stimulants. Either he is still abusing drugs or the delusions of grandeur / smarter than everyone else perception is just part of him. As soon as the entire thing broke I expected him to be on a plane to Dubai like the 3AC founders. He didn't and kept insisting he could fix it. He was actively seeking to raise funds. It was baffling, who would give $ to someone that just liquidated billions? Why would he stick around? He likely has many millions hidden in a variety of wallets. I am not sure he fully understands what he has done and why it is wrong. This could be narccissm, could be something else. With that said, he broke a million laws and cost regular people billions. He probably needs to go to jail. I always saw him, Vitalik and to a lesser extent Cobie [in a different way] and Hoskinson as part of the crypto brain trust. He was definitely the sketchiest of them though.
- nonrepeating 3y ago
  Based on some of his more candid interviews, especially ones shortly after the collapse, it seems SBF doesn't have much of a moral center. Whether or not he's also autistic, I can't say, but he clearly does consider himself to be superior to most everyone else, and his altruism was anything but sincere. One example: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-cryptocurrency-effective-altruism-crypto-bahamas-philanthropy https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-frie...
  - wonderwonder 3y ago
    I'm open to the fact that he could very well be a psycho or socio path.
- tjpnz 3y ago
  Highly intelligent? How?
  - ramraj07 3y ago
    He got into Jane street.
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590939/gov.uscourts.nysd.590939.188.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.59... "What is clear -- regardless of whether the defendant was the first source for stories regarding Ellison -- is that the defendant, rather than deny his guilt as he correctly now says it is his right to do, shared materials with the press obviously designed to intimidate, harass, and embarrass someone he knows is slated to testify against him, and to provoke an emotional response in potential jurors and color a potential jurors view of that witness." "In support of its argument, the defense purports to attach an expert affidavit . . . discussing the constitutional considerations implicated by detaining Mr. Bankman-Fried on the current record. (Dkt. 185 at 2). The so-called expert affidavit is, in substance, an amicus brief filed without a request for leave to do so, written by a professor who is affiliated with the law firm representing the defendants father in connection with the Governments investigation." That's Larry Tribe, once considered an authority on First Amendment issues. "For example, in an attempt to cast the defendants conduct as protected expression rather than an effort to subvert the integrity of the judicial process, the declarant writes: Mr. Bankman-Fried has a constitutional right -- when sought out by reporters for his perspective on stories they are writing -- to avoid projecting a false image of someone who is media-shy or, worse, someone whose consciousness of guilt makes him shun the media rather than being forthcoming. (Dkt. 185-1 at 8)" SBF as "media shy". Indeed.
- supernova87a 3y ago
  Can I ask how you come across these links to such original court document material? I am always wanting to find the source of news reporting of such things, but reporters seemingly can never just quote the original document that contains so much more information than their interpreted regurgitation of it. It's like they don't want us to read the authoritative original.
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
    Agree. If interested in source material used by journalists, perhaps check out this experiment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36823736 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36823736 (Idea was what if one starts with the source material, then reads the article.) https://free.law https://free.law <--- I have certainly seen worse legal websites than this one "It's like they don't want us to read the authoritative original." Job security.
batch12 3y ago
>The government requested that Bankman-Fried be remanded to a jail in Putnam, New York, where he’d have access to a laptop with internet access for defense preparation, as opposed to sending him to Brooklyn’s Metropolitan Detention Center, the facility closest to the courthouse that has limited internet access for prisoners. It's a lucky thing that the other low-profile prisoners in the Metropolitan Detention Center have no need to prepare their defenses.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Even as he violates the conditions of his bail and gets thrown in jail, his privilege persists.
- mchannon 3y ago
  Lucky indeed. Spent 8 weeks there. It does something to you when it's July 4th and you look upon the Statue of Liberty, who is looking past you, through a federal detention window.
  - shipscode 3y ago
    Can’t imagine. Bad enough having to see it from NY or NJ.
    - eulgro 3y ago
      Ah the old switch-a-roo...
  - moneywoes 3y ago
    Sorry to hear that. Curious what the situation was if you’re comfortable sharing
    - mchannon 3y ago
      Messaged you.
  - fuckyah 3y ago
faangiq 3y ago
We all know where this is heading. Just let him go already.
throwawaymedia 3y ago
That was quick. Imagine he was a politician (or a son of a politician... looking at you, Hunter Biden). That would take another several years of investigation and then he'd be let go.
bdg 3y ago
The thing with stupid people is they think everyone else is stupid except themselves.
noam_compsci 3y ago
I will still be extremely surprised if the dude gets more than a 2-year open door no prison better than budget hotel prison sentence.
WentFullRetard 3y ago
[dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

597 points by coloneltcb 3y ago

He had also been using a VPN to "watch sports" but the VPN was registered and located in the Bahamas. And had tried to offer a witness a "bag of cash."

cma 3y ago
All perfectly ethical if it can reduce shrimp suffering on a population basis by getting him free and able to buy a tank and as many sea monkies as possible to provide positive micro utility to each and every one.
- choppaface 3y ago
  I never thought of it that way, but SBF is certainly mission-driven in some way. He even remembered to remove his shoe laces before the cops took him into custody.
CobrastanJorji 3y ago
Wait, doesn't using a VPN to watch sports imply that you are violating the terms of agreement for some website? Is that a reasonable argument you could make in a court?
- danso 3y ago
  The judge cites this as a compelling reason to throw SBF in jail: > Judge Kaplan: This defendant tries to go right up to the line - his use of the VPN to watch a football game over an account he wasn't authorized, there it is.. > Judge Kaplan: He subscribed from the Bahamas and used a VPN as if he were in the Bahamas when he was in Palo Alto and could have watched it on public TV. It shows the mindset. All things considered I am going to revoke bail. https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/1690080018565627904 https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/169008001856562790...
  - jamiek88 3y ago
    >it shows the mindset… Ex-fucking-xactly. The law is not code and judges ain’t linters. Playing the legal equivalent of ‘not touching you, can’t get mad’ and pushing the line when you are already being given a privilege of bail is a bad idea.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Wait, doesn't using a VPN to watch sports imply that you are violating the terms of agreement for some website? No, unless the terms prohibit VPN use. > Is that a reasonable argument you could make in a court? Even if it were a civil offense against the website owner in question, yes, it would be a reasonable argument to make in court in a hearing over adherence to your bail conditions if it wasn't a violation of your bail conditions (which generally include “don’t commit any crimes” as well as any special conditions, but generally don't include “don’t commit any torts”.)
verteu 3y ago
I don't think SBF ever offered a witness a "bag of cash". The only reference to the phrase I can find is [1], where SBF's lawyer appears to be contrasting the case with another that has been submitted for reference/comparison: [SBF's lawyer Mark] Cohen: In one of the cases, the defendant offered a bag of cash to the witness. We don't have that here. [1] https://matthewrussellleeicp.substack.com/p/extra-bankman-fried-bail-revoked https://matthewrussellleeicp.substack.com/p/extra-bankman-fr...

JimtheCoder 3y ago

[flagged]

Evidlo 3y ago
This is the first time I've seen a prison rape joke on HN.
- nickthegreek 3y ago
  Sadly, I don't think he was joking.

1letterunixname 3y ago

A product of an environment of infinite entitlement. Maybe he has a Twinkie defense?

jonathankoren 3y ago
To be That Guy™, the Twinkie Defense isn’t just some dumb meme. It was literal defense used in double murder trial. In 1978, San Francisco supervisor Dan White went into city hall and shot killed mayor George Moscone and supervisor Harvey Milk. At trial, he claimed diminished capacity because of a blood sugar imbalance because he ate some Twinkies. The jury ended up acquitting him of premeditated murder, and instead found him guilty of the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscone%E2%80%93Milk_assassinations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscone%E2%80%93Milk_assassina...
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  To be That Other Guy™, the problem with your contribution isn’t that it might be seen as pedantic, but that its also wrong. > To be That Guy™, the Twinkie Defense isn’t just some dumb meme. It was literal defense used in double murder trial. It is a dumb meme that has evolved around a misleading name a reporter gave to the defense at that trial, which has morphed into an myth about the nature of the defense that you now repeat as fact, despite linking sources explaining that it isn't. > At trial, he claimed diminished capacity because of a blood sugar imbalance because he ate some Twinkies. No, he didn't, as your own first source notes. His recent switch from being a health food nut to eating junk food (the context in which Twinkies were incidentally mentioned) was brought up as one of several external behavioral indicia of the longer tern mental breakdown the defense claimed he was going through, not its cause. And that longer term breakdown was context for the acute break they (and the psychiatrists called as expert witnesses) claimed White experienced that was the center of the diminished capacity defense.
  - hathchip 3y ago
    To be absolutely precise, the claim, as evinced by the diet of Twinkies, that he was depressed, was still an absolutely outrageous, abusive and mendacious justification for the premeditated homophobic murders that he committed in cold blood. But it is true that eating Twinkies was presented as the symptom not the cause.

tedunangst 3y ago

What happened to the theory that he'd never be jailed? The expert analysts were so confident.

yieldcrv 3y ago
if he wasn’t an idiot he wouldn’t have been, cant control stupid unless the theory was about collusion in the executive branch and white house, then you still have an independent judiciary
sillysaurusx 3y ago
Same thing that happened with the expert analysis of LK99. It turns out that the real experts tend to be quieter.
- refulgentis 3y ago
  In our overly connected times, it can feel like there's always two tribes, ours, and the one with the immoral charlatans & savages. Buying into that leads to unpleasantly toned one-man morality plays, based on obviously false claims, like there were people claiming to be experts and then they claimed it was guaranteed it was a room temperature superconductor.
- Eji1700 3y ago
  I mean they weren't quiet, just drowned out. There's this mindset of trusting dreams/drama/personalities more than verifiable processes, and as communities like HN have shown, even people in fields associated with better logic clearly are willing to discard all the caution they'd normally use because they'd like it to be true and someone is saying it is. I feel like SBF actually represents this flaw wonderfully. A person who just does what he wants and has mostly been well enough off to dodge any sort of real consequences. He probably still thought he was doing nothing wrong and still does because the idea that he could be wrong is just not possible because he knows so much. Honestly my already low opinion of groups like WHO/SEC has dropped tremendously with recent events and how they were handled on drama/media reporting rather than actual evidence and science. This rush to the story is hellishly toxic to doing things right, and the vitriol people will spew if you conflict with them on it is gross.

fidotron 3y ago

Good. At this point SBF has become an amazing caricature of himself. I'm a very cynical old git, but even I have been amazed by the limited bounds of my imagination which is forever defeated by this story. Saying that, I do get the feeling he is now being scapegoated quite hard, and that probably serves to motivate his latest stupidities, but FTX required collective and not only individual madness. That must not get lost in all this.

refulgentis 3y ago
> FTX required collective and not only individual madness. I think this either conflates crypto with FTX, or alternatively, SBF being on trial with being scapegoated. The other execs admitted they did something wrong and are pleading guilty. This is individual madness
- itake 3y ago
  Why stop at execs?
- lkjdsfsdf 3y ago
  Nope, they were all crazy. Look at the things Ellison was writing and saying back then. And the money she was losing while claiming to be a savant. Look at the programmer who put in the code that was something like TRADE_IS_ALLOWED = HAS_POSITIVE_BALANCE || TRADER_IS_ALMEDA. Just because they're pleading out doesn't mean they are/weren't crazy.
  - babyshake 3y ago
    Not to be all woke, but "crazy" and "madness" probably aren't the right words for what happened here.
    - DonHopkins 3y ago
      Diabolic has religious connotations, but just the right religious connotations.

danielfoster 3y ago

This is a win-win for everyone since it will also let SBF start serving his sentence early.

swores 3y ago
If he considered starting serving time early a win for himself then he could've chosen not to be bailed. Therefore I don't see how you can call it a win for him if it's not what he wants.
- danielfoster 3y ago
  He’ll be grateful to have some credit for time served once he’s sentenced.
  - wmf 3y ago
    Six weeks won't do much against 100 years.
    - School-Cotton 3y ago
      Do people really get life sentences for crimes that don’t involve causing death or physical harm to others?
      - dpkirchner 3y ago
        Madoff did, but I only know that because it was remarkable enough to be big news.
      - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
        Three-strikes lifers exist, yes -- a system where your most recent crime is punished as an extension of a previous crime, even if the time was served. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rummel_v._Estelle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rummel_v._Estelle
      - 3y ago

nova22033 3y ago

[flagged]

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago

> Members of the press, including counsel for The New York Times and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, had filed letters objecting to Bankman-Fried’s detention, citing free speech concerns. > The final straw, according to prosecutors, was Bankman-Fried leaking private diary entries of his ex-girlfriend, Caroline Ellison, to the New York Times. Ellison pleaded guilty to federal charges in Dec. 2022. > The government added that Bankman-Fried had over 100 phone calls with one of the authors of the Times story prior to publication – many of which lasted for approximately 20 minutes. It seems someone at The NY Times is very sympathetic to him.

asu_thomas 3y ago
> It seems someone at The NY Times is very sympathetic to him. It's more likely (and all but certain) that persons involved with him or his ventures have meaningful influence at the NYT. Sympathy has little meaning in the presence of structural interests.
swores 3y ago
> "It seems someone at The NY Times is very sympathetic to him." Has their coverage of him been positive? I've not read any of it so I don't have a clue, but in a hypothetical situation where you're a journalist at NYT who thinks he's a guilty & idiotic asshole, if he wanted to call you and start chatting away wouldn't you still take the calls and accept any documents he leaks to you despite not being sympathetic to him? It feels like to make the claim in your last sentence you need to show one or more articles that paint him sympathetically since his arrest, not just the fact that one or more journalists haven't refused to speak with him?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- verteu 3y ago
  Yes, very sympathetic IMO. Publishing parts of opposing witness Caroline's diary at his request, an act that was viewed as witness tampering [1]. Allowing him to speak at DealBook summit after he lost customer funds: "The DealBook Summit included Sam Bankman-Fried, who said he was “deeply sorry” about the collapse of FTX. Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Andy Jassy and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine also spoke." [2] In general you don't give a storytelling platform to your enemies. Ever seen a NYTimes article titled "Vladimir Putin: In His Own Words"? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/20/technology/ftx-caroline-ellison-bankman-fried.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/20/technology/ftx-caroline-e... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/20/technology/ftx-caroline-ellison-bankman-fried.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/20/technology/ftx-caroline-e...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

colesantiago 3y ago

Good. We need all crypto executives to begin sizing up jumpsuits for their role in creating unregulated crypto companies that do nothing other than scam people. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they still grind these scammers into jail. This is just the start.

TwoFactor 3y ago
It is not true that all crypto companies are scams, and especially not true that all crypto executives belong in jail.
- phone8675309 3y ago
  What actual, not theoretical, uses of crypto, aside from unregulated speculation, do you believe are non-scam uses?
  - meepmorp 3y ago
    Buying drugs from the internet. Or are the kids not doing that anymore?
    - phone8675309 3y ago
      You don’t need crypto for this - I’ve got a friend that pays his plug on Venmo or CashApp just fine
  - mufti_menk 3y ago
    Having something you can transact with and store value that isn't completely vulnerable to your government's monetary and foreign policy/capital controls
    - knorker 3y ago
      So... Crime? You're describing "isn't touchable by laws". Which means crime.

Marinus 3y ago

[flagged]

Animats 3y ago

Courts seem to be getting somewhat tougher on white-collar crime. - This. - The Supreme Court just stopped the deal that would have let the Sackler family, the OxyContin pushers, off the hook personally. - Hunter Biden's no-jail plea deal was rejected, and he goes to trial. - Trump goes to trial, too.

flutas 3y ago
2/4 of those aren't exactly as you're thinking of them. > The Supreme Court just stopped the deal that would have let the Sackler family, the OxyContin pushers, off the hook personally. Note, they didn't stop the deal. They temporarily paused it while they hear the case later this year. [0] > Hunter Biden's no-jail plea deal was rejected, and he goes to trial. Wasn't directly rejected, the judged asked questions which gave answers that hunters team felt they didn't agree to, including that he is still the subject of ongoing investigations. [1] > At one point, Noreika asked whether the investigation was ongoing, to which Weiss responded that it was but said he could not share any further details. > Noreika also raised a hypothetical, asking whether Biden could face charges of failing to register as a foreign agent and whether the agreement blocks his prosecution on such a charge. The defense said it believed the agreement would prohibit him from being charged, and the prosecution then disagreed. > Clark was overheard telling a prosecutor, "Then we'll rip it up," most likely in a reference to the plea deal, as they discussed the disagreement during a brief break before he eventually relented. [0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-purdue-pharma-settlement-bankruptcy-sackler-family-oxycontin/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-purdue-pharma-set... [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/hunter-biden-expected-plead-guilty-criminal-tax-case-rcna96232 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/hunter-b...
tylermenezes 3y ago
> - The Supreme Court just stopped the deal that would have let the Sackler family, the OxyContin pushers, off the hook personally. Paused, and is reviewing an appeal after a court approved the deal. > - Hunter Biden's no-jail plea deal was rejected, and he goes to trial. It wasn't really rejected, there was no deal at all. The two parties didn't have the same understanding of a key term of the deal, the judge pointed it out, and then the parties weren't able to agree on that term.

compsciphd 3y ago

do the people who put up his bail money lose it due to him violating the terms of the bail and having it be revoked? or do they get it back now as its not needed anymore?

duxup 3y ago
My understanding is that generally you don't lose the bail money unless the person ultimately doesn't show up in court. There are exceptions and the judge has some discretion.
- gemstones 3y ago
  I wonder if the credible threat of losing, say, $250 million might encourage people to ensure the defendant doesn’t engage in witness tampering!
eastbound 3y ago
I suppose if he showed up for jail, then the assets weren’t seized.
loeg 3y ago
No, he didn't skip trial.
zerocrates 3y ago
My understanding is that the default federal rule is that you forfeit for any violation, but that the judge has discretion to decide otherwise. I doubt you'll see movement on, for example, the parents' house, but I could imagine the monetary portion being forfeited. (Edit: and I've read since posting that there will be no forfeiture here)
- Aeolun 3y ago
  It’s not like he actually ran away. This seems sort of reasonable.
- soultrees 3y ago

TMWNN 3y ago

My understanding is that SBF's bail was put up by his parents (pledging their home) and family friends, at and out of Stanford, who put up their own funds. What happens to that?

babyshake 3y ago
Presumably it gets returned once he is behind bars. I'm not an expert though.
- ars 3y ago
  It does get returned. The money is not a punishment, it's just to make sure he shows up when told to. If he doesn't show.......

duxup 3y ago

This wasn't his first round of meeting the judge about bail related violations too IIRC.

swores 3y ago

I wouldn't normally approve of anyone writing this sort of comment, but fuck it: Do not bother reading comments in this thread. The hot takes are already ridiculous, and I honestly don't know why I either bothered to start reading, nor why I bothered to point out the flaws in 4 different comments already. I can't actually imagine what interesting things could be commented about it at this time that isn't just rehashing people's opinions of him that've been said a thousand times already, so I'm closing the thread and won't be coming back to read the inevitable 1000 comments that are coming. I'm just leaving this comment here in the hope that, if others agree enough to upvote it, maybe some of you will be spared wasting time like I just have.

paulcole 3y ago
> The hot takes are already ridiculous, and I honestly don't know why I either bothered to start reading The ridiculous hot takes are why I start reading!
- swores 3y ago
  That's fair enough, enjoy!
ciabattabread 3y ago
Come back when this thread has 1000 comments and the "more" link after the first thread.
bryanlarsen 3y ago
Hint: it's often a good idea to use something like hckrnews.com to read stories after a significant delay. That gives time for the middlebrow comments[1] that shoot quickly to the top some time to get rebutted and sink. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224

pavel_lishin 3y ago

How did he get $250m for bail to begin with?

anonymoushn 3y ago
He didn't have to put up $250m, it was sufficient for family and associates to pledge their houses which are worth much less than that
wmf 3y ago
Because bail numbers are fake. He put up a house and some other money but nowhere near $250M.
- pirate787 3y ago
  Incorrect. You don't understand the system. There is collateral posted against a bond for the full amount; if he skips town the people who posted bail collateral are responsible for the full amount, $250 million.
  - vkou 3y ago
    A bank wouldn't lend people money on those terms, why on earth should a judge? If he doesn't have/can't borrow the full bail amount, I see no reason for him to be out on bail. Normal people don't get this kind of privilege.
    - manquer 3y ago
      Because we don’t have debtors prisons anymore ?[1]. A bank is private business they can choose how to go about their risk and reject anyone for any reason the criminal justice system needs to be fair to all the participants in it . —- [1] yes , there are plenty of people in jail only because they are unable to post bail or some other fees but that is not the same debtors prison
    - hathchip 3y ago
      Because courts and bail bondsmen have lots of scope for chasing, catching and detaining people that aren't available to banks.

RegularOpossum 3y ago

FTX advertised on fortune cookies at my local Chinese takeout restaurant. I'm not sure what else needs to be said.

lake-view 3y ago
I have one that has the FTX ad on one side and on the other side says "In hindsight, it was inevitable."
Aleksdev 3y ago
The fortune cookies tried to warn you!
- jdkee 3y ago
  Didn't Larry David appear in a FTX commercial and in the commercial famously didn't buy into what they were selling? Aha! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWMnbJJpeZc&ab_channel=TheWorld%27sBestAds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWMnbJJpeZc&ab_channel=TheWo...

woodruffw 3y ago

Perhaps I shouldn't expect rational behavior from someone who ran a cryptocurrency exchange, but this decision is utterly bewildering: judges tends to take even the perception of witness intimidation seriously, and there's no light in which releasing someone's diary (versus than attempting to have it admitted as ordinary evidence) isn't meant to be intimidation.

gitfan86 3y ago
But that was the whole logic of crypto. "The USD is going to go to zero someday so I might as well steal everyone's USD today"
- arcticbull 3y ago
  For real though. Give me all your soon-to-be-worthless real dollars in exchange for magic beans. But uh, if the beans are so good, why do you want my dollars?
themodelplumber 3y ago
He is an interesting person in that way. I've been casually analyzing the situation and his actions from a personality theory point of view. It's clear that SBF doesn't look at business/legal logic as an objective "thing" with special givens and nomenclature to which one must adhere, as many of us do. He sees it more as a unique series of isolated situations with their own unfolding logic. He is taking the puzzler's approach. (Is this related to his being raised by people with legal experience? The most experienced in a given field are often the least likely to give the most definite/standard answers...things "tend to depend") But, for that same reason, he'll also tend to entrap himself for lack of look-ahead knowledge relating to precedent and legal practice. Broad precedent and ethics are essentially off one's radar, if one really leans into the "I can solve it myself" logician style. That's a huge risk for someone like him: He's going to look like he's trying to reinvent the wheel, so to speak, of what it means to be a defendant in a risky position. People with basic knowledge will be left utterly confused as to why he keeps messing up, this person who is apparently kind of a genius in a way? Yet it's still clear that his executive logic is extremely resilient and active. This is not the type of personality to go "based on legal history, I'm a jerk and I'm screwed, might as well give up." In fact I'd guess that his natural openness to various ideas would prevent him from making definite moral conclusions about his choices. He is probably going to keep grinding at this position of his until some chain of things starts to work out. Some might make the _moral_ or _predictive_ conclusion that he should do otherwise, but this is a _rational_ person in the sense of attention to the typical social bell curve. In that particular bell curve, it's _irrational_ to not defend yourself and fight for yourself, especially if you think the public record is completely off, wrong, etc. His answer to "why don't you head over to Google for even better legal assistance" might just be, "I'm learning and analyzing my way through this from first principles, and for that I need my own brain, some logic, and a bit of luck." In the end, you don't necessarily need the look-ahead knowledge, especially with the right people on your side...even though it can _really_ help to not make these kind of obvious blunders in that direction. (This is looking at personality and his actions in that context, not so much a good/bad moral analysis)

efficax 3y ago

i know it's been said before but why did anyone ever think this guy was responsible enough to handle all that fucking "money"

krona 3y ago
He stood on stage with all the right people said all the right shibboleths!
- BSEdlMMldESB 3y ago
  should have been a politician!
- dontupvoteme 3y ago
  and critically had the right background.
thatsagreatcomm 3y ago
Well-spoken and connected dude with MIT and Jane Street on his resume
- cj 3y ago
  Talking to Jim Cramer on CNBC with 8 computer monitors behind him. Super articulate kid who got in with the right crowd.
  - Waterluvian 3y ago
    A high charisma stat can get you far until someone calls your bluff and you actually have to fight and know stuff.
    - Freedom2 3y ago
      Appropriate, given the recent release of Baldurs Gate 3! Bravo for the comment.

monero-xmr 3y ago

This guy is going to jail for at least 20 years. He knows it too, and is doing crazy stuff because that’s all he has left. He is going to sell his life story to the highest bidder and set up a Twitter handle where he can post via snail mail like Ross Ulbricht. SBF is a total piece of shit and deserves whatever he gets.

Waterluvian 3y ago
I have this (unresearched) hypothesis that people who enjoy having a lot of control will do anything they can to continue to behave that way. Even if you’ve taken away all the levers except the one labelled “kick self in the groin” they will pull it. I anticipate the former president doing this a lot in the next year. Any time the right move is to do nothing, he will find a way to do literally anything.
- nullc 3y ago
  I don't know that you need the condition "people who enjoy having a lot of control" -- having other people or forces take control of your life is a hard situation for almost anyone. People respond as you say-- if hurting themselves is the lever they have left, they'll often pull it. And sometimes that means "hurting" in a very literal sense, like cutting themselves.
- VHRanger 3y ago
  You're describing a dysfunction of the dopamine system You can see it in people with unmedicated ADHD for instance, who prefer the stimulation of something toxic (a fight, drama, etc.) To boredom, even fully aware of the consequences of starting a fight.

drfuchs 3y ago

[flagged]

bdcravens 3y ago
The right to free speech never means freedom from consequences of that speech.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- astrange 3y ago
  Yes it does. Consequences are the only thing you can be free from.
  - Zetice 3y ago
    No it doesn’t, you can easily be prevented from speaking in the first place.
    - pessimizer 3y ago
      Are you talking about cutting people's tongues out, or prior restraint? Because you don't know who to restrain if they haven't already said something. As a consequence of things you've said in the past, or things that you have just said and have not yet been distributed, you can have that distribution limited or prevented. All of them are consequences.
      - Zetice 3y ago
        If your point is causality exists, okay. If your point is that the 1st amendment is an absolute freedom of speech, you couldn't be more wrong.
    - astrange 3y ago
      And in this case he is being prevented from future speech acts, demonstrating another category of things it doesn't protect you from.

tdhz77 3y ago

[flagged]

dbg31415 3y ago

Anyone who didn’t see from a mile away that this guy is trash was intentionally closing their eyes. Pretty cringey how much press he got.

zedadex 3y ago
> see from a mile away that this guy is trash Actually possible, given the billboards lol

sublinear 3y ago

Weirdly I think he's trying to protect her from a harsher sentence now that they're both fucked. Just because she fully cooperated and tells a sad story doesn't mean she isn't guilty.

LZ_Khan 3y ago
I'm pretty sure he's trying to ruin her career for good, ala "scorched earth strategy." She admits in her diary that she feels incompetent for leadership, having a natural tendency to defer.. etc. Now no firm will ever think about hiring her in an important position.
- jonas21 3y ago
  What hypothetical firm would say, "she pleaded guilty to multiple felony fraud charges, but hey, let's give her a chance anyway. Wait, what's this? She wrote in her diary that she has doubts about her leadership ability? Never mind!"
  - radicaldreamer 3y ago
    I'm pretty sure that part of her plea bargain with the SEC charges will be a lifetime ban from the financial industry and its unlikely any other major company would hire her either. I think the best path forward is probably memoir and the redemption story circuit and maybe some kind of fraudster turned consultant gig. I'm sure there are already agents trying to get her to auction TV and Film rights to her side of the story.
    - sublinear 3y ago
      > "fraudster turned consultant gig" This is exactly what I meant and it happens too often. If she doesn't serve much if any time for this, she continues her career as an "expert" and that's not enough of a punishment. She's just as guilty as Sam Bankman-Fried. That she cooperated is irrelevant. That she plays dumb should make it worse for her. She will not be sentenced until the investigation is completed and her cooperation is no longer required. I'm hoping they make the right call and give her at least the same as him.

dcow 3y ago

So the "probable cause" is that SBF is meeting with journalists and sharing evidence that might bring into question the credibility of the prosecution's star witness? Hmm I thought witness tampering was more serious like trying to pay the witness off or making false accusations or intimidating them something. I mean all this guy's co-conspirators have been bought off by the prosecution to testify against him. I can't help but feel like his action's are at least understandable. Unless he's supposed to save all his ammo for the actual court case and attack the credibility directly there. I'm obviously not a lawyer but I didn't realize such subtle actions were considered witness tampering... wouldn't we want to know all the details about a witness? If there's real reason to be worried about someone's credibility wouldn't we want to know about it? Without knowing better, I'd probably be fighting tooth and nail in whatever way possible to not by martyred alone while my co-conspirators walk with a slap on the wrist because that's how criminal justice works, whether I deserved it or not. EDIT: just to be clear, I'm not making any statement as to whether I agree or disagree with SBF or whatnot. I am just trying to understand what actually happened here and surprised that speaking with journalists falls under witness tampering. TIL.

cmpbl 3y ago
I don't feel strongly on this, but you could read it as an intimidation tactic: I have so much over you that I can print your diaries in the NYT... just see what I have in my pocket if you really cross me.
maxbond 3y ago
> Unless he's supposed to save all his ammo for the actual court case and attack the credibility directly there. Yes, that is how he could attack the credibility of a witness without ending up in hot water. He would have to introduce it into evidence, and hazard the court rejecting it. If it was accepted, then yeah, they could tell the jury about Ellison feeling like she may not be cut out the run Alameda (for all the good that would do, I suspect not very much). If you try to bypass this process unilaterally, then the court isn't going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

yankput 3y ago

[flagged]

electriclove 3y ago
[flagged]
- yankput 3y ago
  Eh HN karma is not what I live for :)
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    It's worth infinitely less than skee-ball tickets.
- rvz 3y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
timeon 3y ago
Can you elaborate?

ladon86 3y ago

House arrest? Multiple friends of mine have reported spotting him at SFO over the last few months. Here's a video from someone (who I don't know) from late March: https://twitter.com/sidtriv/status/1641641533240905728 https://twitter.com/sidtriv/status/1641641533240905728

ttul 3y ago
He was permitted to travel to New York under the terms of his bail to meet with lawyers.

bandyaboot 3y ago

[flagged]

bourgoin 3y ago
*inspects image* > that's a shame that's a shame ;)
- bandyaboot 3y ago
  *hangs head in shame*
layer8 3y ago
Parse error: unexpected character '“' (U+201C)

jfghi 3y ago

I wonder if the series of events will have any precedence or influence for other notable trials going on at the moment.

primitivesuave 3y ago

They're going to study SBF in law school some day. In the same way a computer science professor would emphasize automated testing to catch edge cases, a legal professor will emphasize that no matter how intelligent and well-connected your client seems, they may still be suffering from "edge case" delusional behavior that destroys their case. This is the same guy who dialed into tech conferences and made provably false statements after the public collapse of FTX and after his parents (both law professors) had retained counsel. And yet, nobody thought to explain to him how easily he might get caught up on witness tampering and obstruction of justice charges if he continued making public statements.

mataug 3y ago
Someone may have explained to him that this was witness tampering, but as my mother likes to say “went into one ear came out the other” for SBF. He’s rarely faced consequences for his actions until now.
- jjoonathan 3y ago
  Yeah. On his PR tour he repeatedly made public statements that will negatively impact his defense; there's no way his council didn't try to shut that down. SBF isn't listening to his lawyers.
  - cdchn 3y ago
    Much like anybody who tries to 'explain things' to the cops he thought he could talk his way out of it, or into a better position.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
akira2501 3y ago
There are plenty of better examples. Sam is essentially just a common crook. He put his hand in his own companies cookie jar. This idea that he's going to "be studied" just plays into his own paid for media created mythos. This is the same guy who tried to make "effective altruism" part of his image. That was a pretty strong signal that the outcome we all witnessed was highly likely.

elicash 3y ago

I think the standard way our justice system treats defending yourself publicly as witness intimidation is faulty. In the previous instance, his talking to journalists should be protected first amendment activities. And then later, with the diary, I don't think his intent was to intimidate her or to change her testimony, but rather to defend himself to the public. I don't think those two things are the same. On the other hand, I'm very open to the idea that stealing someone's diary and publishing it is itself illegal. I'd want to know more there. Also, what I personally believe to be an overly-expansive definition of witness intimidation is pretty standard and he should be held to the same rules as others. So while I think the justice system generally needs to change on this, I think the judge is correctly applying the normal practice here as they would to anybody else.

maximinus_thrax 3y ago
> I don't think his intent was to intimidate her It doesn't matter what the intent is. She's a witness and trying to pull this shit is a huge no-no, as the judge rightly ruled. He should have known better.
- elicash 3y ago
  Your response doesn't contradict anything I wrote. I wrote that the judge was correct in sending him to jail for witness intimidation because they should apply the same standard they do in every other case. I just don't like the standard! Edit: Quick correction. I suppose your first sentence does disagree with my view on whether intent matters. But I'm pretty sure "intent" shows up in the statute. You also seem to disagree with the prosecutor who argued that intent DOES matter and that his intent here was to intimidate the witness.
pessimizer 3y ago
You don't have the right to defend yourself in public while awaiting trial. He doesn't even have the right to leave his house; the idea that his speech can't be restrained is fantasy.
- 3y ago

voz_ 3y ago

I'd love to see this clown destroyed

NetOpWibby 3y ago

What a headline, I literally LOL'd.

radicaldreamer 3y ago

The hardest part for him is going to be the dopamine withdrawals. He's supposed to be in a drug treatment program but with his behavior during house arrest, who knows if his parents have any disciplinary skills to make sure he was clean before his bail was revoked.

bobmaxup 3y ago
Not trying to lend to your theory, but I found a interesting document: https://www.bop.gov/resources/pdfs/detoxification.pdf https://www.bop.gov/resources/pdfs/detoxification.pdf > Inmates with a dependency on cocaine or other stimulants generally do not require treatment in an inpatient setting. The cessation of this substance does not always cause specific withdrawal symptoms. However, symptoms may be severe enough to require clinical intervention. For most inmates who use cocaine or other stimulants, medications are not ordinarily indicated as an initial treatment for withdrawal or dependence, as none have shown efficacy. Inmates are treated symptomatically. > SAMHSA recommends that patients withdrawing from stimulants should be monitored closely for depression/suicidality, as well as prolonged QTc intervals and seizures, which may be additional complications of stimulant withdrawal. An EKG is recommended during cocaine withdrawal to monitor for cardiac complications.
- VHRanger 3y ago
  He wasn't just on amphetamines, he was also on MAOIs which are stronger stuff
  - 3np 3y ago
    Characterizing MAOIs as "stronger stuff" than amphetamines is just nonsense and I don't see how the context here would make it either meaningful or relevant.
    - VHRanger 3y ago
      Using selegiline as a stimulant has a lot more risks (some irreversible!) and side effects than just using an amphetamine or methylphenidate like anyone else seeking the same effect would. It certainly explains the tremors you saw him have in interviews - you need a lot of abuse with amphetamines to get to that level of side effect. In general it speaks to a level of personal recklessness you don't even see in the typical cocaine guzzling white collar criminal.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago

So what's with $250m bail? Will the judge take it? Or only if he escapes?

vkou 3y ago
1. There never was $250m. 2. Generally speaking, you only lose your bail money if you don't show up to court when a judge tells you to.
lordfrito 3y ago
The 10% is non recoverable I believe. This means his parents essentially paid $25m to keep him out of jail for 6 months.

gigatexal 3y ago

Is his brain fully formed? Does he have functioning critical thinking skills? Is he just that dumb? Surely his counsel and others are advising him to shut his damn mouth …

justrealist 3y ago
He's on crazy stimulants.

curiousllama 3y ago

There was a 250M bond posted, IIRC - does this mean his guarantors lose the money?

throw03172019 3y ago
Would they only lose the money if he fled and didn’t appear for court?
drexlspivey 3y ago
not if he shows up
ilc 3y ago
I don't think so. He hasn't fled. The 250M is to make sure his butt shows up.
dragonwriter 3y ago
I may be wrong, but I believe that bail forfeiture would be a separate order from revocation/remand, with its own hearing. The summary of the revocation order (the full document isn't up yet on CourtListener) refers to remand to custody but not forfeiture. I think it can occur for both failure to appear and other violations of bail conditions, but I don’t know, on practice, how common forfeiture is for violations of other bail conditions.
pseingatl 3y ago
They only guaranteed the personal surety bond. No one put up any cash. There was no corporate surety bond imposed as a condition of release.
- pseingatl 3y ago
  https://twitter.com/al_mu7ami/status/1690124304447344641?s=20 https://twitter.com/al_mu7ami/status/1690124304447344641?s=2...
pseingatl 3y ago
https://twitter.com/al_mu7ami/status/1690124304447344641?s=20 https://twitter.com/al_mu7ami/status/1690124304447344641?s=2...

lavezzi 3y ago

Never should have been allowed out. Absolutely braindead move from the judge.

joshmn 3y ago
Federal system presumes all individuals charged with a crime be out of custody.

smsm42 3y ago

Do I get it right that all SBF had to do to stay out of jail (at least until trial) is exactly nothing, and he still failed at that?

DetroitThrow 3y ago
Yes, surprisingly. He had fairly strict communications restrictions as part of his bail deal, only to harass a witness indirectly in the press in some of the few ways left he could contact the outside world.
- bemusedthrow75 3y ago
  *unsurprisingly The dude is not a textbook narcissist, and if he's a sociopath he does a very good job of hiding it, but his grandiosity and self-certainty is off-the-scale. This is exactly what people like him (self-myth-believers) do.
Aleksdev 3y ago
Yes, for whatever reason he went on clubhouse and started explaining his side of the story. That’s a nightmare for most lawyers.
quickthrower2 3y ago
Doing nothing is very hard for most people. Doing nothing takes discipline!
influxmoment 3y ago
He's an entitled psychopath with two Stanford law professor parents. I'd say he's been getting away with things this whole life and doesn't feel the need to stop now. Maybe reality will catch up with him when the sentencing happens

gentle 3y ago

I'm fascinated by how so many comments here seem to assume that Bankman-Fried is playing some long strategy, when the simplest answer is that he's mentally ill and can't stop himself from engaging in compulsive behaviors, even when he's been appraised of the consequences, repeatedly.

H8crilA 3y ago
Elon Musk vibes. For example when he was shilling dogecoin, or bragging about not caring at all about the $420 SEC settlement. It's oddly fun to watch such exceptional narcissists, both when they rise and when they fall. They're so invested in their image.
- chmod600 3y ago
  Elon has been important in at least 3 major companies that have real products that are delivering real value today. I can't speak to his mental health, but SBF is simply not comparable.
  - harry8 3y ago
    I've loathed Elon since the Thai cave fiasco but I think this is entirely fair.
    - H8crilA 3y ago
      It was a judgement of personality traits/disorder. Not of commerical success. SBF, Musk or Trump behave like privileged children that believe rules/law do not apply to them. They want everyone to know and admire them for their awesomeness, in fact it's their awesomeness that buys them an infinite number of get-out-of-jail cards. Yes, Musk is the most useful out of all of them, by a mile. Still, the personality type/disorder is the same.
  - IOT_Apprentice 3y ago
    Important in being a source of money. The rest? Not so much.

renegade-otter 3y ago

At some point it becomes fascinating to study what makes a person this smart (allegedly) so resistant to learning from a simple actions -> consequences chain of events. This guy is supposed to be good at logic? But then again, they had millions of dollars unaccounted for just sloshing around because "it's just how business works". So there is that.

danparsonson 3y ago
Hubris. Nobody's immune to it, and being smart can make it worse as everyone around you reinforces it.
jgilias 3y ago
He’s just a sharp fool. It’s someone who is good at the kind of smarts that lets them multiply numbers quickly, and this has led them into a trap of believing that they are a genius who’s never wrong. These people have very rigid mental models of the world, as they tend to not question their own understanding.

pseingatl 3y ago

For those with questions about federal bonds, return of money etc. check this out: https://twitter.com/al_mu7ami/status/1690124304447344641?s=20 https://twitter.com/al_mu7ami/status/1690124304447344641?s=2...

SilasX 3y ago
That says nothing about return of money, let alone cetera.

popilewiz 3y ago

[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

etc-hosts 3y ago

I was wondering why SBF was not immediately jailed when he was caught communicating with ex-FTX employees with Signal earlier this year. Also the news reported he was installing VPNs so that he could 'watch football online' or something about as stupid.

once_inc 3y ago
One word: money. If you have enough of it, the rules can be bent, or broken altogether.
- cynusx 3y ago
  It's more about inefficiencies in the judicial system, every infraction is a new crime that has to be researched and evidenced and ruled upon which provides avenue for delaying actions by lawyers. The justice system is designed to defend the innocent, not to aggressively pursue and harass the guilty. SBF's is living on borrowed time as the cases make it through the legal process.
- xdavidliu 3y ago
  does he currently have "enough money"?
  - pigeonhole123 3y ago
    His family and he is extremely well connected, I'm sure they can scrape together some money for lawyers
  - samstave 3y ago
    He was likely funneling billions(?) to Alameda girl, who apparently absconded with a bunch... and to his parents, who are already wealthy law professors at stanford, and he gave hundreds of millions to political bribes.
plaguepilled 3y ago
While I agree that there is an excess of evidence available to jail SBF with ease - and he should be jailed without question - I am bit unsure about your VPN comment. Specifically, if Sam uses a VPN after having communication restrictions put in place around what he can say, is that inherently suspicious to a court? I would have assumed it is insufficient on its own but could be presented as the means for breaking court order if shown with other supporting evidence. I'm not a lawyer mind you, so this is just me trying to understand it for myself.

jacknews 3y ago

Wow quite a character.

tonetheman 3y ago

[dead]

xdavidliu 3y ago

Here's the resulting New York Times article from the Google docs that SBF shared. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37095093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37095093

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

[flagged]

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> His mother was laughing out loud in court in the Bahamas when SBF was being denied bail Could someone with a background in trial law explain why she would do this? Is the entire family just bad at emotional regulation? If so, is this common among professors at a top-3 law school?
- fuckyah 3y ago
  [dead]
- dkqmduems 3y ago
  It's a simple case of affluenza. This diagnosis brought to you pro bono by marc tessier lavigne.
- dannyobrien 3y ago
  I've no background in trial law, but people often react apparently inappropriately in moments of shock. I guess judges and trial lawyers are familiar with it. https://www.scienceofpeople.com/nervous-laughter/ https://www.scienceofpeople.com/nervous-laughter/
  - tiffanyg 3y ago
    My personal motto is: "Inappropriate laughter, there's nothing more appropriate." Honestly, if you want to distinguish "human" from "lizard in a human skin suit", "animal" (a la Gom Jabbar), or "machine"*, the "Rubber Chicken Bearing Test" (https://youtu.be/9AqqmjGzeTQ https://youtu.be/9AqqmjGzeTQ) is your aqua regia**! * Forget the "Turing test" ... *** ** Or, aqua humanus ... or aqua homo ... to put it in words the channers undoubtedly lurking here might understand :) *** More seriously, probably forget any "test" ... aside from "probing all the way through" https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/thinkingMeat.html https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/think... ... though, even that seems likely to be inaccurate ... https://youtu.be/Umc9ezAyJv0 https://youtu.be/Umc9ezAyJv0 ...

tacker2000 3y ago

This guy just keeps on giving. Incredible.

wonderwonder 3y ago

This is the strangest story. Sam is clearly autistic, highly intelligent and was likely suffering form a variety of other maladies, many of them [I had thought] induced by massive overuse of stimulants. Either he is still abusing drugs or the delusions of grandeur / smarter than everyone else perception is just part of him. As soon as the entire thing broke I expected him to be on a plane to Dubai like the 3AC founders. He didn't and kept insisting he could fix it. He was actively seeking to raise funds. It was baffling, who would give $ to someone that just liquidated billions? Why would he stick around? He likely has many millions hidden in a variety of wallets. I am not sure he fully understands what he has done and why it is wrong. This could be narccissm, could be something else. With that said, he broke a million laws and cost regular people billions. He probably needs to go to jail. I always saw him, Vitalik and to a lesser extent Cobie [in a different way] and Hoskinson as part of the crypto brain trust. He was definitely the sketchiest of them though.

nonrepeating 3y ago
Based on some of his more candid interviews, especially ones shortly after the collapse, it seems SBF doesn't have much of a moral center. Whether or not he's also autistic, I can't say, but he clearly does consider himself to be superior to most everyone else, and his altruism was anything but sincere. One example: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-cryptocurrency-effective-altruism-crypto-bahamas-philanthropy https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-frie...
- wonderwonder 3y ago
  I'm open to the fact that he could very well be a psycho or socio path.
tjpnz 3y ago
Highly intelligent? How?
- ramraj07 3y ago
  He got into Jane street.

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590939/gov.uscourts.nysd.590939.188.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.59... "What is clear -- regardless of whether the defendant was the first source for stories regarding Ellison -- is that the defendant, rather than deny his guilt as he correctly now says it is his right to do, shared materials with the press obviously designed to intimidate, harass, and embarrass someone he knows is slated to testify against him, and to provoke an emotional response in potential jurors and color a potential jurors view of that witness." "In support of its argument, the defense purports to attach an expert affidavit . . . discussing the constitutional considerations implicated by detaining Mr. Bankman-Fried on the current record. (Dkt. 185 at 2). The so-called expert affidavit is, in substance, an amicus brief filed without a request for leave to do so, written by a professor who is affiliated with the law firm representing the defendants father in connection with the Governments investigation." That's Larry Tribe, once considered an authority on First Amendment issues. "For example, in an attempt to cast the defendants conduct as protected expression rather than an effort to subvert the integrity of the judicial process, the declarant writes: Mr. Bankman-Fried has a constitutional right -- when sought out by reporters for his perspective on stories they are writing -- to avoid projecting a false image of someone who is media-shy or, worse, someone whose consciousness of guilt makes him shun the media rather than being forthcoming. (Dkt. 185-1 at 8)" SBF as "media shy". Indeed.

supernova87a 3y ago
Can I ask how you come across these links to such original court document material? I am always wanting to find the source of news reporting of such things, but reporters seemingly can never just quote the original document that contains so much more information than their interpreted regurgitation of it. It's like they don't want us to read the authoritative original.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
  Agree. If interested in source material used by journalists, perhaps check out this experiment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36823736 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36823736 (Idea was what if one starts with the source material, then reads the article.) https://free.law https://free.law <--- I have certainly seen worse legal websites than this one "It's like they don't want us to read the authoritative original." Job security.

batch12 3y ago

>The government requested that Bankman-Fried be remanded to a jail in Putnam, New York, where he’d have access to a laptop with internet access for defense preparation, as opposed to sending him to Brooklyn’s Metropolitan Detention Center, the facility closest to the courthouse that has limited internet access for prisoners. It's a lucky thing that the other low-profile prisoners in the Metropolitan Detention Center have no need to prepare their defenses.

mcpackieh 3y ago
Even as he violates the conditions of his bail and gets thrown in jail, his privilege persists.
mchannon 3y ago
Lucky indeed. Spent 8 weeks there. It does something to you when it's July 4th and you look upon the Statue of Liberty, who is looking past you, through a federal detention window.
- shipscode 3y ago
  Can’t imagine. Bad enough having to see it from NY or NJ.
  - eulgro 3y ago
    Ah the old switch-a-roo...
- moneywoes 3y ago
  Sorry to hear that. Curious what the situation was if you’re comfortable sharing
  - mchannon 3y ago
    Messaged you.
- fuckyah 3y ago

faangiq 3y ago

We all know where this is heading. Just let him go already.

throwawaymedia 3y ago

That was quick. Imagine he was a politician (or a son of a politician... looking at you, Hunter Biden). That would take another several years of investigation and then he'd be let go.

bdg 3y ago

The thing with stupid people is they think everyone else is stupid except themselves.

noam_compsci 3y ago

I will still be extremely surprised if the dude gets more than a 2-year open door no prison better than budget hotel prison sentence.

WentFullRetard 3y ago

[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]