5 ms·

Since the same comment is getting posted over and over about the light sentence, I'm raising this quote here for visibility: > Prosecutors did not recommend a

Since the same comment is getting posted over and over about the light sentence, I'm raising this quote here for visibility: > Prosecutors did not recommend a specific sentence for Ms. Ellison, but they filed a memo to Judge Kaplan praising her “exemplary” cooperation with the government. Her lawyers requested that she serve no prison time. > “I have seen a lot of cooperators. I have never seen one like Ms. Ellison,” Judge Kaplan said before announcing the sentence. “What she said on the stand was very incriminating of herself, and she pulled no punches about it.” > Judge Kaplan said the difference between Ms. Ellison and Mr. Bankman-Fried was that “she cooperated and he denied the whole thing.” We knew her sentence would be light back during SBF's trial because she was a key witness in that case. The prosecutors traded her sentence for his.

golergka 2y ago
Makes sense. This precedent creates the incentives for criminals to cooperate in the future.
shmatt 2y ago
So all diddy needs to do is get on the stand and describe every single party of his and he’ll get a slap on the wrist? While there should be more incentives to cooperate, like the type of prison, allowed visits, etc. claiming someone should serve less time because they described so much of their own crimes is kind of silly
- rexreed 2y ago
  You only get a reduced sentence if you cooperate in the prosecution against someone else the government / prosecutor is just as or more interested in. That wouldn't be the case with the diddle.
  - mandevil 2y ago
    Not technically true. Even without a formal plea, you can enter a plea of guilty and throw yourself on the mercy of the court. Showing remorse and admitting your crimes definitely makes judges like you more!
- pessimizer 2y ago
  We want to bribe criminals to betray each other. The people who they are betraying could do anything up to killing them to prevent this, and we have to compete with that. The world gets zero benefit to imprisoning this woman indefinitely, it in fact costs money, and if the government had to prove their case against her without her cooperation, it would just cost even more money. Not letting a fully-cooperating sucker like her off is the opposite of a deterrent to crime. It's telling low-level people who are involved in crimes that it's better to keep quiet. We want to encourage them to betray. I hope when she gets out she becomes a celebrity, and it encourages other young people to decide to whistleblow or turn snitch on the scammy companies they work for.
  - vkou 2y ago
    > The world gets zero benefit to imprisoning this woman indefinitely What sorts of people does the world benefit from imprisoning indefinitely, and where on the spectrum does, say, being a serial and unrepentant shoplifter, stealing mid-four figures sums compare to being a financial criminal stealing mid-eight-figure sums? She wasn't a 'low level whistleblower', she was one step below the ringleader, and only came clean after the whole thing went tits up and she was staring down two decades in federal. If you're looking for heroes and whistleblowers, I don't think there were any in that whole organization. Just rats turning on eachother once the trap snapped shut around them.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I think a serial shoplifter or thief is worse. It is a bigger problem for me personally, and impacts far more people. Therefore I think it deserves harsher penalties.
      - vkou 2y ago
        A thief will steal from a few stores. A fraudster of that magnitude steals from anywhere between thousands to millions of people.
        2y ago
- miki123211 2y ago
  She didn't just describe her own crimes, although I'm sure that played a part. She also described somebody else's crimes, and did that in a way which helped the government with sentencing the "real villain."
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  In the real world, a prosecutor can only nail a higher-up with the cooperation of the people lower down. Those people only cooperate if they get a lighter sentence. It's too bad, but that's how it is and it plays out every day in criminal courts. As for Diddy: a real, disinterested DOJ would say, "oh, you can testify against <people more famous than you>? Well, we might be able to cut you a deal." Of course, if the DOJ is not interested in prosecuting those people, then no deal. If they think Diddy is already important enough and they can't let him slide, then no deal, or at least, a medium-stiff sentence. Finally, two years in prison is not a picnic. See if you want to do it.
  - borroka 2y ago
    But a lighter sentence could, for example, range from no jail time to rates of less than 100 percent of the expected sentence in the case of non-cooperation. The prosecutor's recommendation of no jail time is frankly disappointing. She may not have been the main offender, but she committed the crimes. What would her sentence have been if she did not cooperate (and suppose other did or there was enough evidence anyway)? Fifteen+ years? Two years is not a picnic, but given the alternative, it looks like it is.
    - voxic11 2y ago
      > Prosecutors did not recommend a specific sentence for Ms. Ellison It was her lawyers that asked for no jail time. Not the prosecutors.
      - borroka 2y ago
        According to the article I read (CNBC), "The prison term was significantly stiffer than the recommendation by the federal Probation Department that Judge Lewis Kaplan sentence Ellison, who had run the hedge fund Alameda Research, to three years of supervised release, with no time at all behind bars". In the same article, "Assistant U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon urged Kaplan for leniency". It seems to me, as prosecutors and Probation Dept talk to each other, that all, except Kaplan, agreed on no prison time for Ellison.
    - 2y ago
- stackghost 2y ago
  >So all diddy needs to do is get on the stand and describe every single party of his and he’ll get a slap on the wrist? Do you honestly think this is how the legal system works?
- xwowsersx 2y ago
  No, because when prosecutors offer a light sentence to a secondary criminal in a conspiracy, it's usually a strategic decision to secure cooperation in prosecuting the main target. It wouldn't make sense that a lighter sentence for an accomplice/secondary sets a precedent for a principal actor and Diddy is the principal actor in his case, AFAIK. (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with any of this, just saying this is the internally consistent approach.)
throw310822 2y ago
Are you saying that if SBF had cooperated in the same way, he would also have gotten 2 years instead of 25? Then he was really badly advised by his lawyers.
- Lalabadie 2y ago
  Bankman-Fried has a superhuman ability to ignore sound advice.
- sneak 2y ago
  Going to a federal trial in general is almost always a mistake. The feds rarely lose cases; the plea bargain they offer is almost always going to be the best option for you.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    Maybe they'd lose more cases if they had to try their cases.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- beaglesss 2y ago
  True or not he could have created a pretty strong argument the investors purposefully selected a guy set up with all the moral hazards to run off the rails and make them cash while frontrunning a casino. Frame it as a clever deck of plausible deniability by rich elites who created the perfect recipe of a crime without actually explicitly inviting it. We all know the investors knew what they were doing when they sent this arrogant, inexperienced, greedy sociopath on his course. Unfortunately for him he didn't realize he was also a patsy, and he took pretty much all the heat.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    that is a defense you can try to spin in the media, but not a legal defense.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

golergka 2y ago

Makes sense. This precedent creates the incentives for criminals to cooperate in the future.

shmatt 2y ago

So all diddy needs to do is get on the stand and describe every single party of his and he’ll get a slap on the wrist? While there should be more incentives to cooperate, like the type of prison, allowed visits, etc. claiming someone should serve less time because they described so much of their own crimes is kind of silly

rexreed 2y ago
You only get a reduced sentence if you cooperate in the prosecution against someone else the government / prosecutor is just as or more interested in. That wouldn't be the case with the diddle.
- mandevil 2y ago
  Not technically true. Even without a formal plea, you can enter a plea of guilty and throw yourself on the mercy of the court. Showing remorse and admitting your crimes definitely makes judges like you more!
pessimizer 2y ago
We want to bribe criminals to betray each other. The people who they are betraying could do anything up to killing them to prevent this, and we have to compete with that. The world gets zero benefit to imprisoning this woman indefinitely, it in fact costs money, and if the government had to prove their case against her without her cooperation, it would just cost even more money. Not letting a fully-cooperating sucker like her off is the opposite of a deterrent to crime. It's telling low-level people who are involved in crimes that it's better to keep quiet. We want to encourage them to betray. I hope when she gets out she becomes a celebrity, and it encourages other young people to decide to whistleblow or turn snitch on the scammy companies they work for.
- vkou 2y ago
  > The world gets zero benefit to imprisoning this woman indefinitely What sorts of people does the world benefit from imprisoning indefinitely, and where on the spectrum does, say, being a serial and unrepentant shoplifter, stealing mid-four figures sums compare to being a financial criminal stealing mid-eight-figure sums? She wasn't a 'low level whistleblower', she was one step below the ringleader, and only came clean after the whole thing went tits up and she was staring down two decades in federal. If you're looking for heroes and whistleblowers, I don't think there were any in that whole organization. Just rats turning on eachother once the trap snapped shut around them.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think a serial shoplifter or thief is worse. It is a bigger problem for me personally, and impacts far more people. Therefore I think it deserves harsher penalties.
    - vkou 2y ago
      A thief will steal from a few stores. A fraudster of that magnitude steals from anywhere between thousands to millions of people.
      - 2y ago
miki123211 2y ago
She didn't just describe her own crimes, although I'm sure that played a part. She also described somebody else's crimes, and did that in a way which helped the government with sentencing the "real villain."
AlbertCory 2y ago
In the real world, a prosecutor can only nail a higher-up with the cooperation of the people lower down. Those people only cooperate if they get a lighter sentence. It's too bad, but that's how it is and it plays out every day in criminal courts. As for Diddy: a real, disinterested DOJ would say, "oh, you can testify against <people more famous than you>? Well, we might be able to cut you a deal." Of course, if the DOJ is not interested in prosecuting those people, then no deal. If they think Diddy is already important enough and they can't let him slide, then no deal, or at least, a medium-stiff sentence. Finally, two years in prison is not a picnic. See if you want to do it.
- borroka 2y ago
  But a lighter sentence could, for example, range from no jail time to rates of less than 100 percent of the expected sentence in the case of non-cooperation. The prosecutor's recommendation of no jail time is frankly disappointing. She may not have been the main offender, but she committed the crimes. What would her sentence have been if she did not cooperate (and suppose other did or there was enough evidence anyway)? Fifteen+ years? Two years is not a picnic, but given the alternative, it looks like it is.
  - voxic11 2y ago
    > Prosecutors did not recommend a specific sentence for Ms. Ellison It was her lawyers that asked for no jail time. Not the prosecutors.
    - borroka 2y ago
      According to the article I read (CNBC), "The prison term was significantly stiffer than the recommendation by the federal Probation Department that Judge Lewis Kaplan sentence Ellison, who had run the hedge fund Alameda Research, to three years of supervised release, with no time at all behind bars". In the same article, "Assistant U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon urged Kaplan for leniency". It seems to me, as prosecutors and Probation Dept talk to each other, that all, except Kaplan, agreed on no prison time for Ellison.
  - 2y ago
stackghost 2y ago
>So all diddy needs to do is get on the stand and describe every single party of his and he’ll get a slap on the wrist? Do you honestly think this is how the legal system works?
xwowsersx 2y ago
No, because when prosecutors offer a light sentence to a secondary criminal in a conspiracy, it's usually a strategic decision to secure cooperation in prosecuting the main target. It wouldn't make sense that a lighter sentence for an accomplice/secondary sets a precedent for a principal actor and Diddy is the principal actor in his case, AFAIK. (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with any of this, just saying this is the internally consistent approach.)

throw310822 2y ago

Are you saying that if SBF had cooperated in the same way, he would also have gotten 2 years instead of 25? Then he was really badly advised by his lawyers.

Lalabadie 2y ago
Bankman-Fried has a superhuman ability to ignore sound advice.
sneak 2y ago
Going to a federal trial in general is almost always a mistake. The feds rarely lose cases; the plea bargain they offer is almost always going to be the best option for you.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  Maybe they'd lose more cases if they had to try their cases.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
beaglesss 2y ago
True or not he could have created a pretty strong argument the investors purposefully selected a guy set up with all the moral hazards to run off the rails and make them cash while frontrunning a casino. Frame it as a clever deck of plausible deniability by rich elites who created the perfect recipe of a crime without actually explicitly inviting it. We all know the investors knew what they were doing when they sent this arrogant, inexperienced, greedy sociopath on his course. Unfortunately for him he didn't realize he was also a patsy, and he took pretty much all the heat.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  that is a defense you can try to spin in the media, but not a legal defense.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]