3 ms·
It's worth noting that a huge amount of the government's case involved evidence that SBF and team were buying lavish oceanfront condos, paying superstar athlete
by GCA10 3y ago
It's worth noting that a huge amount of the government's case involved evidence that SBF and team were buying lavish oceanfront condos, paying superstar athletes for weird TV commercials, etc.
This was actually a tiny slice of the overall financial mischief at FTX. But it told well in front of a jury. And it reinforced a big point that prosecutors keep wanting to make, as publicly as possible. "Don't take the customers' money to live large on your thefts!" That's a message that they want countless bookkeepers, financial planners, etc. to hear, again and again.
So, yes, they wanted to make an example out of SBF. The intricacies of FTX's full financial gyrations were sometimes too complicated to put in front of a jury. But the clueless or duped crypto-trading clients got a free bailout anyway. It came on the back of a prosecution that was largely intended to be a public slapdown of a guy committing lifestyle offenses with other people's money.
- trogdor 3y ago> The intricacies of FTX's full financial gyrations were sometimes too complicated to put in front of jury. What evidence do you have of this? Jury trials frequently involve ‘complicated gyrations’ — that’s what expert testimony is for.
- GCA10 3y agohttps://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/04/three-hours-were-all-the-jury-needed-to-convict-sam-bankman-fried.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/04/three-hours-were-all-the-jur...
- trogdor 3y agoThe article doesn’t say that anything was too complex to put in front of the jury. It says that prosecutors presented the story as a straightforward case of fraud. >The key at trial, aside from the multiple cooperators, was the way in which prosecutors simplified the case and tried it as a garden-variety fraud instead of as a complex crypto scheme.