4 ms·

No way. Playing by the book it's an easy, open and shut case that he loses very badly badly. No other conceivable outcome that way. His only option is to thro

by harry8 3y ago

No way. Playing by the book it's an easy, open and shut case that he loses very badly badly. No other conceivable outcome that way. His only option is to throw the book out and create as much chaos as possible so prosecutors are faced with the unusual and novel and make mistakes his team can capitalise on. It's a long shot, sure. He's got nothing else. This lunacy is all 100% rational behaviour on his part.

LordShredda 3y ago
Maybe, but the most probable event here is a kid with too much money and fame
- harry8 3y ago
  Disagree. Amoral trader, who always acted like an amoral trader, continues to act like an amoral trader. He's always been calculating and clever. You did see this, right? https://unusualwhales.com/politics/article/senate_ftx https://unusualwhales.com/politics/article/senate_ftx Washington corruption is rampant and at an all time peak, both R&D, to be sure but he's got to give them some kind of smoke screen by making a really simple thing like his being a thief "complicated." The guy knows where the bodies are, he has some leverage. Probably not nearly enough but we'll see.
DanHulton 3y ago
...or he ends up with a bunch of fresh new charges in addition to all the existing ones, some being of the very exciting felony class. I don't see how that's very rational at all.
- harry8 3y ago
  He's going to jail for many years, this is really unlikely to increase that duration to parole or change the facility to supermax but is a long shot, hail mary at reducing things or even getting off. Why not? Classic asymmetric payoff. Any trader will see that. (Maybe my analysis is wrong and it /can/ make things meaningfully worse but if not, it's extremely rational).
  - primitivesuave 3y ago
    You're correct that it can't make things meaningfully worse. Even if he got the maximum charge for obstruction of justice (5 years), it would be an insignificant risk for someone facing 120-150 years.
smsm42 3y ago
I don't see how chaos leading to bail being revoked is an awesome strategy. Where exactly is the win?
- harry8 3y ago
  May not be a win, I sure hope there isn't one. There should not be one. I just don't see him as meaningfully worse off. The muddier, smokier, more controversial and strange make it at least /possible/ there can be some lawyers "Aktuhally..." and he comes out somehow ahead. If not, nothing lost, he's unlikely to go to jail for longer or a worse one. It's a hail mary to be sure but it's a free throw of the dice. Do you think this list of, um, "politicians" wants to give all the stolen money back that he donated? They sure have an interest in how this plays out, huh? https://unusualwhales.com/politics/article/senate_ftx https://unusualwhales.com/politics/article/senate_ftx Just because someone act like a total idiot doesn't mean that they aren't.
  - smsm42 3y ago
    Nobody is giving back anything of course, but that's all in the past - that money is gone and no more us coming, so nobody is going to stick with him for that. His parents and their friends - maybe.
- nostrademons 3y ago
  He's going to jail for witness tampering. If he successfully tampers with the witness, enough to sow reasonable doubt and lead to his acquittal at trial, then it's worth it. That's why it's a crime - because there is a potential payoff to it. If actually tampering with the witness never worked, there would be no need to criminalize it.
  - smsm42 3y ago
    Getting charged with tampering is much, much easier than successfully tamper. If he wanted to scare Elison publishing some dirt or sending texts is not going to do it - feds have much better ways to scare people into cooperation. And his very expensive lawyers told him as much, I am sure, because every lawyer would. But he probably decided he knows better.
primitivesuave 3y ago
I could actually see this being a viable strategy - create enough evidence and research burden for the prosecution so as to maximize the debate around admissibility of evidence and opportunities for limiting the trial's scope.
- harry8 3y ago
  Yup and when I wrote that I was only thinking of the asymmetric payoff and had forgotten how much stolen money he donated to the powerful who don't want to give it back. Now that /should/ be totally irrelevant but will it be? Will they all stay 100% completely away from it even in secret? The level of corruption that are normal right now are unprecedented IMO. I'd like to be wrong about it but I'd like it if it were reformed a lot more.
seanp2k2 3y ago
It seems to be working well enough for a certain other high-profile defendant at the moment.

by harry8 3y ago

LordShredda 3y ago

Maybe, but the most probable event here is a kid with too much money and fame

harry8 3y ago
Disagree. Amoral trader, who always acted like an amoral trader, continues to act like an amoral trader. He's always been calculating and clever. You did see this, right? https://unusualwhales.com/politics/article/senate_ftx https://unusualwhales.com/politics/article/senate_ftx Washington corruption is rampant and at an all time peak, both R&D, to be sure but he's got to give them some kind of smoke screen by making a really simple thing like his being a thief "complicated." The guy knows where the bodies are, he has some leverage. Probably not nearly enough but we'll see.

DanHulton 3y ago

...or he ends up with a bunch of fresh new charges in addition to all the existing ones, some being of the very exciting felony class. I don't see how that's very rational at all.

harry8 3y ago
He's going to jail for many years, this is really unlikely to increase that duration to parole or change the facility to supermax but is a long shot, hail mary at reducing things or even getting off. Why not? Classic asymmetric payoff. Any trader will see that. (Maybe my analysis is wrong and it /can/ make things meaningfully worse but if not, it's extremely rational).
- primitivesuave 3y ago
  You're correct that it can't make things meaningfully worse. Even if he got the maximum charge for obstruction of justice (5 years), it would be an insignificant risk for someone facing 120-150 years.

smsm42 3y ago

I don't see how chaos leading to bail being revoked is an awesome strategy. Where exactly is the win?

harry8 3y ago
May not be a win, I sure hope there isn't one. There should not be one. I just don't see him as meaningfully worse off. The muddier, smokier, more controversial and strange make it at least /possible/ there can be some lawyers "Aktuhally..." and he comes out somehow ahead. If not, nothing lost, he's unlikely to go to jail for longer or a worse one. It's a hail mary to be sure but it's a free throw of the dice. Do you think this list of, um, "politicians" wants to give all the stolen money back that he donated? They sure have an interest in how this plays out, huh? https://unusualwhales.com/politics/article/senate_ftx https://unusualwhales.com/politics/article/senate_ftx Just because someone act like a total idiot doesn't mean that they aren't.
- smsm42 3y ago
  Nobody is giving back anything of course, but that's all in the past - that money is gone and no more us coming, so nobody is going to stick with him for that. His parents and their friends - maybe.
nostrademons 3y ago
He's going to jail for witness tampering. If he successfully tampers with the witness, enough to sow reasonable doubt and lead to his acquittal at trial, then it's worth it. That's why it's a crime - because there is a potential payoff to it. If actually tampering with the witness never worked, there would be no need to criminalize it.
- smsm42 3y ago
  Getting charged with tampering is much, much easier than successfully tamper. If he wanted to scare Elison publishing some dirt or sending texts is not going to do it - feds have much better ways to scare people into cooperation. And his very expensive lawyers told him as much, I am sure, because every lawyer would. But he probably decided he knows better.

primitivesuave 3y ago

I could actually see this being a viable strategy - create enough evidence and research burden for the prosecution so as to maximize the debate around admissibility of evidence and opportunities for limiting the trial's scope.

harry8 3y ago
Yup and when I wrote that I was only thinking of the asymmetric payoff and had forgotten how much stolen money he donated to the powerful who don't want to give it back. Now that /should/ be totally irrelevant but will it be? Will they all stay 100% completely away from it even in secret? The level of corruption that are normal right now are unprecedented IMO. I'd like to be wrong about it but I'd like it if it were reformed a lot more.

seanp2k2 3y ago

It seems to be working well enough for a certain other high-profile defendant at the moment.