4 ms·
> There is zero evidence that [stealing] was his intent. The federal jury seems to have disagreed, finding him guilty on all charges, all of which require inte
by letmeinhere 3y ago
> There is zero evidence that [stealing] was his intent.
The federal jury seems to have disagreed, finding him guilty on all charges, all of which require intent. As do his co-conspirators who testified to their fraud.
This is such a bizarre take; this was one of the most lopsided financial prosecutions of all time and you're out here saying it had no foundation in fact at all?
- anamexis 3y agoYour replacement in brackets is completely different than what the parent said. “And distributing it to the poor” was a key part of what they were responding to.
- letmeinhere 3y agoThe last sentence is literally "The fact that he failed does not mean that he intended to steal from the rich". The commenter was very clearly disputing SBF's _intent_ to steal. _You_ may doubt his good intentions for that theft (quite reasonably), but that's not the point that we are debating.
- letmeinhere 3y agoNot only did panarky clearly dispute intent to steal, they specifically said that there's a lot of evidence of intent to help people: "There is a lot of evidence that he intended to maximize trading profits and use those profits to help people." Juxtaposed with zero evidence of intent to steal. I'm sorry, but I believe you have misread the thread completely.