4 ms·

I'm curious how the sentencing goes, not only for SBF but those around him that took deals. In my limited view of US cases, it often seems prosecutors let off

I'm curious how the sentencing goes, not only for SBF but those around him that took deals. In my limited view of US cases, it often seems prosecutors let off lightly anyone that will testify in return for their whale. Sometimes feels it's more symbolic justice that way than real.

epolanski 3y ago
I'm not American, but it's my understanding that there's more scrutiny on prosecutors to "nail" and close cases due to the stupid double jeopardy rule. You lose the chance to convict a criminal, you lose your face and the chance to see him behind bars.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > the stupid double jeopardy rule You really want the government to decide to re-arrest and re-try you indefinitely if you are acquitted of a crime? The double jeopardy rule is not stupid.
  - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
    But it's shown to be stupid in movies. How could that possibly not be right?
  - epolanski 3y ago
    That's not what happens in countries that don't have double jeopardy, you know that right?
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  Double jeopardy is a relatively common protection and predates the United States. All of Europe, India, all of the Americas, and any other country that inherited English common law are among the majority of countries on earth that have this protection in one form or another.
  - epolanski 3y ago
    Italian system definitely does not have it, neither Poland or France.
    - dghlsakjg 3y ago
      You are incorrect, or they are in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. You can use your favorite search engine to verify this. Polish law translated: "No criminal proceedings shall be initiated if another criminal proceeding in respect of the same act committed by the same person have been validly completed (ne bis in idem, res iudicata) or are already pending (lis pendens)[19] If criminal proceedings are initiated in contravention of this principle, the proceedings shall be discontinued." Double jeopardy rule doesn't prevent appeals to a higher court which is what happens in Italy frequently, and it doesn't prevent retrial when there are new legal facts or a defect with the original case. I don't know why you are so unwilling to research this when it is a very accepted legal principle. Are you sure that you understand what double jeopardy is? That the government cannot retry your case once a final ruling has been made. Simply put: you can't have two separate trials for the same crime. You can still have the case pass through separate courts and judges through appeals process since many systems allow review of a conviction before it is considered "final".
      - epolanski 3y ago
        Wait, this is different from US law. In all Europe you can be retried if new evidence is found or the previous ruling/trial had formal issues or misproceedings. In US, this is really not the case, even if new evidence is found it you cannot retry a defendant.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
That depends heavily on what you think the purpose of the justice system is. For most purposes, nailing the whale and breaking up the party is enough to set an example and send a message. There isnt much value in incarcerating additional people simply for the sake of punishment/revenge. The other individuals are unlikely to cause future harm.
- zerbinxx 3y ago
  I tend to agree that both practically and legally, when you’re dealing with a fraud as big as this one, that successfully prosecuting the Big Man At The Top is the best strategy. People might scoff at mid-level fraud “doers” getting a slap on the wrist deal for their testimony, but the alternative where you go full scorched earth and fail to get a conviction would be terrible for the defrauded and the system beyond them. Capitalists (i.e. the owners of capital, the investor class, in this case) love a system where you don’t really have to quadruple check that a financial document is valid. Who can blame them? I certainly wouldn’t want to live in a world where something like FDIC doesn’t exist or where fraudsters can easily rip people off with low chances of jail time if/when the operation goes belly up.
- harry8 3y ago
  >There isnt much value in incarcerating additional people simply for the sake of punishment/revenge. The idea is that everyone knowingly involved goes to jail. This way others presented with opportunity to go along with such fraud /know/ there is a very, very real consequence. Rather than "CEO could go down for this but what the hell, I'll go along with it." It's not retribution, it's justice.
  - mdasen 3y ago
    I'd also note that the people around often profit from these things as well. It's not like the CEO is doing something only for the CEO's benefit. The other people involved lived lavish lifestyles with high salaries and were looking at a huge pay day. They didn't just go along with it. They were looking to profit from it.
  - bestcoder69 3y ago
StressedDev 3y ago
Prosecutors don't decide sentences in the United States. Judges decide sentences and in US Federal Government cases, the US Government issues sentencing guidelines. These guidelines are usually used to determine how long a person goes to prison for. What prosecutors can do is recommend a sentence and let the judge know that a criminal cooperated. Cooperating typically reduces a criminal's sentance. Ultimately, Federal sentences are decided by three things: A) The laws of the United States. These can be changed by the United States Congress. B) The sentencing guidelines (https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines) C) Prison Capacity (At some point, you cannot send anyone else to jail because the prisons are full)
- throw_m239339 3y ago
  > What prosecutors can do is recommend a sentence and let the judge know that a criminal cooperated. Cooperating typically reduces a criminal's sentance. Ultimately, Federal sentences are decided by three things: The prosecution does decide charges to bring forward, so the prosecution can decide to only charge defendants with lesser charges if they cooperate to catch bigger fishes. If Judges stopped going along with prosecutor's deals, then nobody would be making deals ever again. Usually, judges do honor deals made with the defendant.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nradov 3y ago
Some of this is also "Prisoner's Dilemma" type game theory with prosecutors playing a long game to improve their odds of winning not just the current case but future cases as well. When there are several co-defendants the prosecutors will give the best deal to whoever cracks first and agrees to testify against the others. Future co-defendants in other cases (and their attorneys) see that pattern and then race each other to get the first, best deal.

epolanski 3y ago

I'm not American, but it's my understanding that there's more scrutiny on prosecutors to "nail" and close cases due to the stupid double jeopardy rule. You lose the chance to convict a criminal, you lose your face and the chance to see him behind bars.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> the stupid double jeopardy rule You really want the government to decide to re-arrest and re-try you indefinitely if you are acquitted of a crime? The double jeopardy rule is not stupid.
- danielmarkbruce 3y ago
  But it's shown to be stupid in movies. How could that possibly not be right?
- epolanski 3y ago
  That's not what happens in countries that don't have double jeopardy, you know that right?
dghlsakjg 3y ago
Double jeopardy is a relatively common protection and predates the United States. All of Europe, India, all of the Americas, and any other country that inherited English common law are among the majority of countries on earth that have this protection in one form or another.
- epolanski 3y ago
  Italian system definitely does not have it, neither Poland or France.
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    You are incorrect, or they are in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. You can use your favorite search engine to verify this. Polish law translated: "No criminal proceedings shall be initiated if another criminal proceeding in respect of the same act committed by the same person have been validly completed (ne bis in idem, res iudicata) or are already pending (lis pendens)[19] If criminal proceedings are initiated in contravention of this principle, the proceedings shall be discontinued." Double jeopardy rule doesn't prevent appeals to a higher court which is what happens in Italy frequently, and it doesn't prevent retrial when there are new legal facts or a defect with the original case. I don't know why you are so unwilling to research this when it is a very accepted legal principle. Are you sure that you understand what double jeopardy is? That the government cannot retry your case once a final ruling has been made. Simply put: you can't have two separate trials for the same crime. You can still have the case pass through separate courts and judges through appeals process since many systems allow review of a conviction before it is considered "final".
    - epolanski 3y ago
      Wait, this is different from US law. In all Europe you can be retried if new evidence is found or the previous ruling/trial had formal issues or misproceedings. In US, this is really not the case, even if new evidence is found it you cannot retry a defendant.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

That depends heavily on what you think the purpose of the justice system is. For most purposes, nailing the whale and breaking up the party is enough to set an example and send a message. There isnt much value in incarcerating additional people simply for the sake of punishment/revenge. The other individuals are unlikely to cause future harm.

zerbinxx 3y ago
I tend to agree that both practically and legally, when you’re dealing with a fraud as big as this one, that successfully prosecuting the Big Man At The Top is the best strategy. People might scoff at mid-level fraud “doers” getting a slap on the wrist deal for their testimony, but the alternative where you go full scorched earth and fail to get a conviction would be terrible for the defrauded and the system beyond them. Capitalists (i.e. the owners of capital, the investor class, in this case) love a system where you don’t really have to quadruple check that a financial document is valid. Who can blame them? I certainly wouldn’t want to live in a world where something like FDIC doesn’t exist or where fraudsters can easily rip people off with low chances of jail time if/when the operation goes belly up.
harry8 3y ago
>There isnt much value in incarcerating additional people simply for the sake of punishment/revenge. The idea is that everyone knowingly involved goes to jail. This way others presented with opportunity to go along with such fraud /know/ there is a very, very real consequence. Rather than "CEO could go down for this but what the hell, I'll go along with it." It's not retribution, it's justice.
- mdasen 3y ago
  I'd also note that the people around often profit from these things as well. It's not like the CEO is doing something only for the CEO's benefit. The other people involved lived lavish lifestyles with high salaries and were looking at a huge pay day. They didn't just go along with it. They were looking to profit from it.
- bestcoder69 3y ago

StressedDev 3y ago

Prosecutors don't decide sentences in the United States. Judges decide sentences and in US Federal Government cases, the US Government issues sentencing guidelines. These guidelines are usually used to determine how long a person goes to prison for. What prosecutors can do is recommend a sentence and let the judge know that a criminal cooperated. Cooperating typically reduces a criminal's sentance. Ultimately, Federal sentences are decided by three things: A) The laws of the United States. These can be changed by the United States Congress. B) The sentencing guidelines (https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines) C) Prison Capacity (At some point, you cannot send anyone else to jail because the prisons are full)

throw_m239339 3y ago
> What prosecutors can do is recommend a sentence and let the judge know that a criminal cooperated. Cooperating typically reduces a criminal's sentance. Ultimately, Federal sentences are decided by three things: The prosecution does decide charges to bring forward, so the prosecution can decide to only charge defendants with lesser charges if they cooperate to catch bigger fishes. If Judges stopped going along with prosecutor's deals, then nobody would be making deals ever again. Usually, judges do honor deals made with the defendant.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

nradov 3y ago

Some of this is also "Prisoner's Dilemma" type game theory with prosecutors playing a long game to improve their odds of winning not just the current case but future cases as well. When there are several co-defendants the prosecutors will give the best deal to whoever cracks first and agrees to testify against the others. Future co-defendants in other cases (and their attorneys) see that pattern and then race each other to get the first, best deal.