3 ms·

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.
  - beaglesss 2y ago
    Caroline let it fall up
plorg 2y ago
Whatever it is that got SBF in this mess it's the same thing that prevented him getting out of it with a light sentence. I don't know if that means he deserves it exactly - it seems like a better system wouldn't put a person like him in the place where he could do so much damage, but that's kinda where we're at.
actionablefiber 2y ago
SBF didn't have anyone bigger to flip on.
bwilliams18 2y ago
Who is SBF going to flip on up the chain? The Feds give deals to people lower on the hierarchy to get the people at the top (in this case, in their judgement, SBF alone).
- datavirtue 2y ago
  He could have feigned remorse, admitted guilt and flipped it on her.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I dont think that would work. the DOJ had picked the big fish and it was him, for good reason.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
luma 2y ago
Did you read what he was doing while this case went on? Dude was on talk shows and podcasts and posting online while constantly admitting to felonies. I can't think of a worse client, there was absolutely nothing his lawyers could do short of a literal (not figurative) gag.
m3kw9 2y ago
He’s the trigger man and she’s the gold finger
gerdesj 2y ago
"Are you saying that if SBF had cooperated in the same way, he would also have gotten" Why are you asking a rando about a judicial decree? The legal systems in most countries are rather more nuanced than your if ... then clause.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
In the USA if you exercise your right to a trail then a very heavy trial tax is imposed, especially in Federal cases. https://naacp.org/resources/eliminating-illegal-practice-trial-tax https://naacp.org/resources/eliminating-illegal-practice-tri... You have the right, but you are severely punished if you dare exercise it. This is 'just' (as in keeping with justice) because it helps reduce the strain on our justice system that is not designed and can in no way handle a non-trivial amount of cases actually going to trial and people exercising their rights. Just like companies can no longer function without people giving up their rights and requiring binding arbitration, our justice system would not be able to function if people didn't give up their right to trial. The USA used to make fun of China because it has enshrined rights in it's constitution that, in practice, are not available or not applicable in actual daily life. I have free speech, but not where people would hear it. I have the right to a trial, but with it comes actuality the government will change my sentence to near life (or the portion of life that has any quality to it) if I dare avail myself of that right. How many people close to you will die if you dare take your case to trial and get a trial tax imposed? How much of your childrens' lives will you miss? How long will they suffer without you earning money to support them? Or, will you miss out on the child rearing years completely when one starts a family because of the lengthy trial tax? Best to take the plea. There's a reason the Feds conviction rate is 95%, it's the explicit threat/coercion that is the trial tax. Remember, the longer the sentence, the rougher the prison you are sent to as well, because your security rating is heavily based on remaining sentence length. So it's not just a threat of length, but also the level of violence you will be subjected to during imprisonment. Ironically, you have to testify that you were not coerced, to the judge, in court, to get out of having the trial tax imposed when you take your plea, when the very same judge knows of and is the person who applies the trial tax.
- datavirtue 2y ago
  Being guilty and having no reasonable out, while using the justic system procedures as a hail Mary so that you might escape on a technicality should be punished. If you have no remorse you are a clear danger to society.
  - thanksgiving 2y ago
tptacek 2y ago
Probably not, because he led the conspiracy.
helsinkiandrew 2y ago
Nate Silver interviewed SBF before the court case for his book, and asked if he would accept a plea deal: > The last question I asked him is Hey Sam, what if they gave you a two-year plea deal, right? Two years in some minimum security prison and then you can't do some trading stuff for some probationary period of time. Bankman Fried said no, he wouldn't take that deal. His day in court was worth the risk. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0jqbjp5 https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0jqbjp5

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.
- beaglesss 2y ago
  Caroline let it fall up

plorg 2y ago

Whatever it is that got SBF in this mess it's the same thing that prevented him getting out of it with a light sentence. I don't know if that means he deserves it exactly - it seems like a better system wouldn't put a person like him in the place where he could do so much damage, but that's kinda where we're at.

actionablefiber 2y ago

SBF didn't have anyone bigger to flip on.

bwilliams18 2y ago

Who is SBF going to flip on up the chain? The Feds give deals to people lower on the hierarchy to get the people at the top (in this case, in their judgement, SBF alone).

datavirtue 2y ago
He could have feigned remorse, admitted guilt and flipped it on her.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I dont think that would work. the DOJ had picked the big fish and it was him, for good reason.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

luma 2y ago

Did you read what he was doing while this case went on? Dude was on talk shows and podcasts and posting online while constantly admitting to felonies. I can't think of a worse client, there was absolutely nothing his lawyers could do short of a literal (not figurative) gag.

m3kw9 2y ago

He’s the trigger man and she’s the gold finger

gerdesj 2y ago

"Are you saying that if SBF had cooperated in the same way, he would also have gotten" Why are you asking a rando about a judicial decree? The legal systems in most countries are rather more nuanced than your if ... then clause.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

In the USA if you exercise your right to a trail then a very heavy trial tax is imposed, especially in Federal cases. https://naacp.org/resources/eliminating-illegal-practice-trial-tax https://naacp.org/resources/eliminating-illegal-practice-tri... You have the right, but you are severely punished if you dare exercise it. This is 'just' (as in keeping with justice) because it helps reduce the strain on our justice system that is not designed and can in no way handle a non-trivial amount of cases actually going to trial and people exercising their rights. Just like companies can no longer function without people giving up their rights and requiring binding arbitration, our justice system would not be able to function if people didn't give up their right to trial. The USA used to make fun of China because it has enshrined rights in it's constitution that, in practice, are not available or not applicable in actual daily life. I have free speech, but not where people would hear it. I have the right to a trial, but with it comes actuality the government will change my sentence to near life (or the portion of life that has any quality to it) if I dare avail myself of that right. How many people close to you will die if you dare take your case to trial and get a trial tax imposed? How much of your childrens' lives will you miss? How long will they suffer without you earning money to support them? Or, will you miss out on the child rearing years completely when one starts a family because of the lengthy trial tax? Best to take the plea. There's a reason the Feds conviction rate is 95%, it's the explicit threat/coercion that is the trial tax. Remember, the longer the sentence, the rougher the prison you are sent to as well, because your security rating is heavily based on remaining sentence length. So it's not just a threat of length, but also the level of violence you will be subjected to during imprisonment. Ironically, you have to testify that you were not coerced, to the judge, in court, to get out of having the trial tax imposed when you take your plea, when the very same judge knows of and is the person who applies the trial tax.

datavirtue 2y ago
Being guilty and having no reasonable out, while using the justic system procedures as a hail Mary so that you might escape on a technicality should be punished. If you have no remorse you are a clear danger to society.
- thanksgiving 2y ago

tptacek 2y ago

Probably not, because he led the conspiracy.

helsinkiandrew 2y ago

Nate Silver interviewed SBF before the court case for his book, and asked if he would accept a plea deal: > The last question I asked him is Hey Sam, what if they gave you a two-year plea deal, right? Two years in some minimum security prison and then you can't do some trading stuff for some probationary period of time. Bankman Fried said no, he wouldn't take that deal. His day in court was worth the risk. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0jqbjp5 https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0jqbjp5