4 ms·

Guy who was obviously part of the fraud and one of the most inner circle guys. 7.5 years doesn't seem bad compared to what SBF got(25 years). Close to a quart

Guy who was obviously part of the fraud and one of the most inner circle guys. 7.5 years doesn't seem bad compared to what SBF got(25 years). Close to a quarter of the sentence for helping the prosecution and signed a plea deal rather than go to court. There are a few other former FTX employees who are a probably not very happy today. That's more than what the prosecution asked for in terms of length. > . As part of his plea deal, he agreed to forfeit over $1.5 billion, which included fines, restitution to FTX debtors, and the surrender of several properties and assets (CoinDesk) (Cointelegraph) . SO he had to give back almost all his assets as well.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
danso 2y ago
Salame was the only criminally-charged executive [0] to not testify against SBF. Caroline Ellison, Gary Wang, and Nishad Singh all testified in the trial as part of their plea deals and are still awaiting sentencing. Will be interesting to see how their prison time compares with Salame's [0] https://apnews.com/article/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-ryan-salame-crypto-f999baec34226d277bff373a8077d565 https://apnews.com/article/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-ryan-salame...
- kosievdmerwe 2y ago
  I was wondering why he got so "much" time, but if he didn't testify that makes sense. I couldn't remember the list of testifiers.
mulmen 2y ago
I don’t see any mention in the link that says he surrendered $1.5 billion. Where did you see that?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  I Googled with this phrase to find multiple reputable sources: > salame ftx forfeit over $1.5 billion
  - anjel 2y ago
    And who is the direct beneficiary of the 1.5 billon forefeiture?
    - seanhunter 2y ago
      Typically when people forfeit assets in a fraud case that results in a bankruptcy those assets go into the bankruptcy and are used by the trustees to try to make the victims whole. For example, there is a detailed coverage here https://assetforfeiturelaw.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Chapter-for-Colin-King.pdf https://assetforfeiturelaw.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Cha...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
akira2501 2y ago
> all his assets If they were earned through fraud then they were never really his in the first place.
- kylebenzle 2y ago
  I would expect these people to be smart enough to have put a few $million into monero and memorized the seed.
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    Me too But they also did some really dumb delusional things, at least SBF seemed to actually get high on his own supply I’m sure there was a smartest man or person in the room like with Enron and we’ll find out in a movie half a decade later
  - TheNewsIsHere 2y ago
    I do wonder about how he could have hidden assets in advance. Not that you should, but it’s a fun thought experiment. Almost eight years is a long time to hold onto a phrase in memory. You would want to repeat it to yourself every day, and not aloud. You would probably want to make sure someone who really cared about you had a copy. On the other side, that is also a long time for crypto. If your chosen currency crashes or evaporates in the meantime, what was the point over stashing it somewhere in cash or some other liquid or easily liquidated collateral? Perhaps “buying your mom” a load of extremely valuable jewelry that for some reason is still in the box and lives in the basement would be another gamble without as much risk.
    - advokated 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - brevhtff 2y ago
      “Good things come to those who wait.”
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
barfbagginus 2y ago
If SBF had pleaded out and collaborated with investigators instead of taking the trial option, it's very possible he could have walked away with much less time. An extra 15 years for insisting on his innocence seems reasonable.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  They call it the trial tax. Sure you have a constitutional right to it, but they are going to unconstitutionally punish you for exercising it. You should just waive your rights. Funniest part is they actually have to say in court when you take a plea that you weren't coerced into a plea, even though everyone knows and just pretends that the trial tax isnt coercion. The system is based on lieing under oath and the pressuring people to give up their rights.
  - rodgerd 2y ago
    Can you point to the bit of the US constitution that says it's illegal for sentencing to consider questions of remorse and admission of guilt as factors?
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      Edit: In a plea, a judge isn't reducing your sentence for contrition. It is the Prosecutor that is lowering the sentence they are asking the court for. The judge reducing your sentence at sentencing happens much later and is seperate from the plea agreement which is the part where the trial tax is introduced because yes, there is a constitutional process for sentencing and the judge definitely would not be allowed as large of variances during sentencing as prosecutors introduce with plea agreements. So let's take your right to remain silent. You are SPECIFICALLY protected from exercising that right being used against you to assume guilt/impact the process. But with your right to a trial, somehow it is totally OK for the government to punish you for exercising your right. Twist it all you want. We don't punish people for exercising their right to remain silent. You should not be punished for exercising your rights. Again, the court is REQUIRED to ask and you are REQUIRED to attest during a plea that you weren't coerced, even though everyone in the room knows you were threatened with the trial tax (often times in the tens of years of addition time in prison, which also brings your security classification up because classification is partly based on sentence length, meaning you will also then go to much rougher prisons), yet everyone just lets the entire process be one big lie. So the process you promote 1. Takes away rights (you can't be said to truly have a right if the government can, at their whim, punish you for using it with tens of years in prison and with being sent to a much rougher prison). 2. Subverts the courts mechanisms to ensure fairness in that it turns the entire 'must ensure there wasn't coercion of a plea' into a giant lie by omission with everyone pretending they don't see it.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

danso 2y ago

Salame was the only criminally-charged executive [0] to not testify against SBF. Caroline Ellison, Gary Wang, and Nishad Singh all testified in the trial as part of their plea deals and are still awaiting sentencing. Will be interesting to see how their prison time compares with Salame's [0] https://apnews.com/article/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-ryan-salame-crypto-f999baec34226d277bff373a8077d565 https://apnews.com/article/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-ryan-salame...

kosievdmerwe 2y ago
I was wondering why he got so "much" time, but if he didn't testify that makes sense. I couldn't remember the list of testifiers.

mulmen 2y ago

I don’t see any mention in the link that says he surrendered $1.5 billion. Where did you see that?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
throwaway2037 2y ago
I Googled with this phrase to find multiple reputable sources: > salame ftx forfeit over $1.5 billion
- anjel 2y ago
  And who is the direct beneficiary of the 1.5 billon forefeiture?
  - seanhunter 2y ago
    Typically when people forfeit assets in a fraud case that results in a bankruptcy those assets go into the bankruptcy and are used by the trustees to try to make the victims whole. For example, there is a detailed coverage here https://assetforfeiturelaw.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Chapter-for-Colin-King.pdf https://assetforfeiturelaw.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Cha...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

akira2501 2y ago

> all his assets If they were earned through fraud then they were never really his in the first place.

kylebenzle 2y ago
I would expect these people to be smart enough to have put a few $million into monero and memorized the seed.
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  Me too But they also did some really dumb delusional things, at least SBF seemed to actually get high on his own supply I’m sure there was a smartest man or person in the room like with Enron and we’ll find out in a movie half a decade later
- TheNewsIsHere 2y ago
  I do wonder about how he could have hidden assets in advance. Not that you should, but it’s a fun thought experiment. Almost eight years is a long time to hold onto a phrase in memory. You would want to repeat it to yourself every day, and not aloud. You would probably want to make sure someone who really cared about you had a copy. On the other side, that is also a long time for crypto. If your chosen currency crashes or evaporates in the meantime, what was the point over stashing it somewhere in cash or some other liquid or easily liquidated collateral? Perhaps “buying your mom” a load of extremely valuable jewelry that for some reason is still in the box and lives in the basement would be another gamble without as much risk.
  - advokated 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - brevhtff 2y ago
    “Good things come to those who wait.”
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

barfbagginus 2y ago

If SBF had pleaded out and collaborated with investigators instead of taking the trial option, it's very possible he could have walked away with much less time. An extra 15 years for insisting on his innocence seems reasonable.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
They call it the trial tax. Sure you have a constitutional right to it, but they are going to unconstitutionally punish you for exercising it. You should just waive your rights. Funniest part is they actually have to say in court when you take a plea that you weren't coerced into a plea, even though everyone knows and just pretends that the trial tax isnt coercion. The system is based on lieing under oath and the pressuring people to give up their rights.
- rodgerd 2y ago
  Can you point to the bit of the US constitution that says it's illegal for sentencing to consider questions of remorse and admission of guilt as factors?
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    Edit: In a plea, a judge isn't reducing your sentence for contrition. It is the Prosecutor that is lowering the sentence they are asking the court for. The judge reducing your sentence at sentencing happens much later and is seperate from the plea agreement which is the part where the trial tax is introduced because yes, there is a constitutional process for sentencing and the judge definitely would not be allowed as large of variances during sentencing as prosecutors introduce with plea agreements. So let's take your right to remain silent. You are SPECIFICALLY protected from exercising that right being used against you to assume guilt/impact the process. But with your right to a trial, somehow it is totally OK for the government to punish you for exercising your right. Twist it all you want. We don't punish people for exercising their right to remain silent. You should not be punished for exercising your rights. Again, the court is REQUIRED to ask and you are REQUIRED to attest during a plea that you weren't coerced, even though everyone in the room knows you were threatened with the trial tax (often times in the tens of years of addition time in prison, which also brings your security classification up because classification is partly based on sentence length, meaning you will also then go to much rougher prisons), yet everyone just lets the entire process be one big lie. So the process you promote 1. Takes away rights (you can't be said to truly have a right if the government can, at their whim, punish you for using it with tens of years in prison and with being sent to a much rougher prison). 2. Subverts the courts mechanisms to ensure fairness in that it turns the entire 'must ensure there wasn't coercion of a plea' into a giant lie by omission with everyone pretending they don't see it.