3 ms·
> Without denying the Commission’s allegations, Ellison, Wang, and Singh consented to the entry of final judgments, subject to court approval, in which they agr
by SilverElfin 9mo ago
> Without denying the Commission’s allegations, Ellison, Wang, and Singh consented to the entry of final judgments, subject to court approval, in which they agreed to be permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and to 5-year conduct-based injunctions. Ellison also consented to a 10-year officer-and-director bar, and Wang and Singh consented to 8-year officer-and-director bars.
That’s a really light sentence for someone who defrauded people out of billions. Meanwhile many languish in prison for a lot less. It’s a two tier justice system, and the wealthy can get out of consequences with the right connections or donations.
Next up, Elizabeth Holmes - once her family donates enough to the MAGA PAC.
- moralestapia 9mo ago100% Even if you "cooperate", that shouldn't be an 80-90% sentence reduction. She was part of the fraud, consciously, for years!
- cortesoft 9mo agoEven if we all agree this is true, you still have to think practically. If we don't give a big incentive to turn on your co-conspirators, no one will turn and you might not be able to convict any of them.
- moralestapia 9mo ago>Can someone think of the criminals? SBF was toast with or without Ellison's testimony. It should be the other way around. You get 10 years. You don't want to cooperate? Great! You get another 10.
- paulpauper 9mo agoSBF got no more than 25. there is no way she would have gotten more than that.
- edmundsauto 9mo agoAs I understand it, intent matters a lot, and that is typically through the testimony of people who had access to SBF in an environment where he was comfortable speaking candidly. Those people are often accomplices. Sometimes the medium large fish get off if they chop up the big fish. There are the way things should be, and there are the way things are.
- xnx 9mo ago> That’s a really light sentence for someone who defrauded people out of billions I don't excuse anything that she did, but didn't 98% of investors get everything back with interest?
- cosmicgadget 9mo agoI wanna say that was the FTX story, not Alameda.
- arduanika 9mo agoIt was all one company in the end, through co-mingling and lack of controls.
- kingofmen 9mo agoThey did, but not through any virtue or skill on her part. That was just the plain luck of Bitcoin happening to go way way up before the bankruptcy estate paid out using what it had, and the court that sentenced her couldn't know that would happen and if it somehow had, should not have taken it into account. You wouldn't advocate a lighter sentence for murder if the bullet had miraculously been struck by lightning on its way to the target's skull and thereby missed.
- decimalenough 9mo agoWell, actually you would, because that would change it from murder to attempted murder.
- moralestapia 9mo agoCriminal law deals with intent not with outcomes. Hence why "attempted murder" is a thing.
- decimalenough 9mo agoMaybe, on paper, some day in the indeterminate future, and likely without interest. For comparison, MtGox went tits up twelve years ago in 2014 and they're still figuring out repayments for its BTC holders, which is both a hell of a lot simpler than FTX's grab bag of own tokens etc and has gone up a zillion percent since 2014.
- paulpauper 9mo agoThat’s a really light sentence for someone who defrauded people out of billions. She profited very little compared to the others and was invaluable for the case