SpitfireIX
Philosopher
He'll most likely only serve half that with time off for good behavior, assuming his conviction isn't tossed or his sentence reduced on appeal.
ETA: Or he isn't pardoned.
Last edited:
Sam Bankman-Fried
- Thread starter Puppycow
- Start date
He'll most likely only serve half that with time off for good behavior, assuming his conviction isn't tossed or his sentence reduced on appeal.
ETA: Or he isn't pardoned.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I suppose a day for every dollar defrauded would be a bit much.
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
Actually, at 1 second per dollar, it comes out to over 300 years.
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
Thanks.
Suddenly
No Punting
He'll do at least 85% assuming the sentence stands and that the feds don't change their policy.
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
I wrote my previous post based on the following from a NY Post article:
Federal crimes are not eligible for parole, though Bankman-Fried could shave off a considerable amount of time — perhaps as high as 40 or 50% — with good behavior and completing prison rehabilitation programs, said Mark Bini, a veteran prosecutor-turned-defense lawyer at white-shoe law firm Reed Smith.
However, I can't find this confirmed anywhere else, so possibly it's an error.
Suddenly
No Punting
Could be new policies or maybe that "perhaps" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. I think he could spend time on work release and halfway houses and such as he isn't considered a violent criminal. I don't have a lot of experience with those guys...
He is also facing an $11B tab. So even when he gets out he's never going to be able to accumulate even modest wealth as the feds are a bit hard core about asset forfeiture.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
The article goes on to say:
Bankman-Fried would qualify for a sentence reduction under the federal First Step Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump in 2018, because he’s a nonviolent offender and this is his first conviction.
I seem to remember that. In fact, Kanye West and Kim Kardashian lobbied Trump to sign it. (They were still married at the time if memory serves.)
So yeah, I think this is true. The 85% minimum for federal crimes was the rule prior to the First Step Act.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
I just want to post an addendum to the above, which is the following:
The customers will not be "made whole" in the true sense. If they owned 10 bitcoins, they will not get back 10 bitcoins. They might get back the dollar equivalent of the price of bitcoin when FTX went bankrupt, but that isn't actually being "made whole."
It's like as if you entrusted 100 shares of stock in company X to an exchange, and the exchange sold half of the shares and invested the proceeds of the sale in some kind of magic beans, and then went bankrupt, but later during the bankruptcy process, the remaining shares of company X doubled in market price. If you only get 50 shares back, sure they are the same value as 100 shares had been, but you would have doubled your money instead of merely breaking even if you still had 100 shares.
Last edited:
Gulliver Foyle
Philosopher
It should have been "25 years or until all investor, employee or contractor losses are made good, whichever is longer".
I totally disagree.
I would give him a few months home detention if at all.
People losing in crypto are fools.
This guy is young and talented, society is scape goating him for the greed of others .
The sentence is a disgrace, an indelible stain on the enablers.
They got the wrong guy.
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
The investors didn't lose their money because of a bad investment, SBF stole it. He took money not his, after he said he wouldn't and gave it to his other company. That's stealing. Making a bad investment choice is not a license to steal from people. It's not like the investors just got bit in the ass by the underlying flaws in crypto.
Last edited:
It is the age thing
NYT recently said 28 is the prevailing theory for growing up as it were. This was a redirecting of money of fossil fuel burning louts, not murder.
Carrot Flower King
Janitor of Lunacy
Most folk have worked out before they are 28 that stealing billions of dollar/pound/euros is A Bad Thing, frowned upon and will get you in trouble with Jeff the Parky and others.
Did Bankman-Fried never listen to his parents, who kinda know a thing or 2 about that? Or is this teenage rebellion writ large?
Did Bankman-Fried never listen to his parents, who kinda know a thing or 2 about that? Or is this teenage rebellion writ large?
I am thinking in a country like New Zealand the sentence would be 8 years and a chance for parole at 1/3rd.
I am always shocked at US sentences, especially where public safety is not the issue.
SBF's actions were fraudulent. His investors didn't just make a bad decision, and "they shouldn't have invested with him in the first place" isn't a defense of fraudulent behavior. And there's no argument that stealing billions of dollars is a victimless crime, he caused extreme harm. The fact that that harm is measured in dollars rather than bodies doesn't mean it's not harm.
It's definitely in the interest of society to deter crimes of this sort, and even a very mild deterrent effect given the severity of the harm done, SBF himself should see the utilitarian calculus for a steep sentence here as positive.
It's definitely in the interest of society to deter crimes of this sort, and even a very mild deterrent effect given the severity of the harm done, SBF himself should see the utilitarian calculus for a steep sentence here as positive.
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
Well, that's not where he was. He was operating in the US. He had lawyers. The federal sentencing guidelines are published on the the internet in multiple places (I used them to do the smashing job I did of predicting his sentence). It's not like it's a huge secret what could happen to him if he got caught stealing from his investors.
Carrot Flower King
Janitor of Lunacy
In which case it's his own daft fault for doing his frauding in the US and not moving to New Zealand to do it. He should have thought it through better, shouldn't he?
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
They didn't lose their money, it was stolen. There's a difference. They knew or should have known the risks. No one disclosed that one of the risks was theft by the platform owner.
Yes. But there is strict liability inherent. This is not theft by an established institutional banker, but a pre mature frontal cortex entrepreneur in his first offence. He is no Bernie Madoff.
Last edited:
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 33,259
Oh good grief. Another matter you are utterly ignorant of, but continue to pontificate about.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Ultimately the excuse is victim-blaming. His victims should have been smarter. They should have known better than to trust this company, which was buying Super Bowl ads aimed at regular people and hiring athletes like Tom Brady and Shohei Ohtani and Hollywood celebrities like Larry David to promote the company, and donating lots of money to politicians. Superficially, it appeared to be legitimate. Ah, but they should have known better. Caveat emptor. "You screwed up. You trusted us!!!"
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
As far as criminal responsibility goes, it's 100% on SBF. How a civil suit or insurance claim might pan out is a different matter. I probably wouldn't be too upset, if SBF went to prison for the crime, and some of the victims' insurers ended up not paying out on the claims.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
He could have gotten a lot more. With good behavior, he could end up serving a lot less too. Perhaps 15 years.
I was listening to a podcast earlier that said he could have theoretically been sentenced to 100 years, tantamount to a life sentence.
If you say he was no Bernie Madoff, well, Madoff was sentenced to 150 years. He died in prison. SBF will be in his 40s or 50s when he gets out (I think Madoff was already pretty old when he went to prison, late 60s or early 70s). 25 years could be considered relatively lenient.
I was listening to a podcast earlier that said he could have theoretically been sentenced to 100 years, tantamount to a life sentence.
If you say he was no Bernie Madoff, well, Madoff was sentenced to 150 years. He died in prison. SBF will be in his 40s or 50s when he gets out (I think Madoff was already pretty old when he went to prison, late 60s or early 70s). 25 years could be considered relatively lenient.
Sentencing is a fascinating study.
The Taliban have recommenced stonings.
I have no faith in humankind to get sentencing appropriate.
Last edited:
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
The Taliban are more like people from the middle ages culturally.
We don't stone people anymore, or crucify them, or burn them alive, or any of the various primitive punishments that were common at the time. Humankind has gotten better at justice, at least in some modern societies.
We don't stone people anymore, or crucify them, or burn them alive, or any of the various primitive punishments that were common at the time. Humankind has gotten better at justice, at least in some modern societies.
I contend that 25 years is catastrophically Inappropriate.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
I contend that it isn’t.
This was willing buyer and willing seller.
Timing was slightly wrong, there is no reason to
consider his actions worse than Donald Trump.
Gulliver Foyle
Philosopher
Most of the people he stole from were, relatively speaking at least, poor. The whole FTX scam was set up to grift off lots of small investors without the knowledge or resources to properly figure out what was going on.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 33,259
Do you actually understand the term?
The putative buyers were being lied to and deceived, i.e. Misrepresentation.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
No it wasn't. I don't even think you know what you're talking about.
That is a fair perspective. My take tends to be a fool and his money are soon parted, but I admit to knowing several of the younger generation who are handicapped in life by housing costs, and see crypto as a fast track.
Of course I do. I have traded countless derivatives and markets. I have several times found the money gone. It never crossed my mind to blame anyone but myself, mainly because the world is frequented by Nay sayers concerning these types of markets. I would have wasted breath complaining.
What would Buffet and Munger say?
We know because they said it.
Rat poison squared.
It is not as though they are selfish with their wisdom!
(Rip Charlie)
Last edited:
The pied piper must be paid.
My key point is the sentence is draconian, but I find on this board I am an outlier.
Last edited:
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,592
I've no idea what that means, in this context. Who's the pied piper, and why on earth must he be paid, in this context?
I've no sympathy for the greedy losing their shirt, their homes, whatever, by gambling with crypto. But their being stolen from, is a whole separate matter. This is so straightforward that I can't imagine what scope there might be for confusion on this point.
I was commenting specifically on the conflation I mentioned above. As for this guy's sentence, I personally think it was well deserved, maybe too light given the sheer scale of fraud. But as a matter of principle I'm always open to accepting a much lighter sentence than I might personally consider appropriate, because, well let's just leave that at because. So if my sayso would reduce his sentence, I'd be willing to provide it. But not on grounds that crypto's risky, because that has zero relevance to this fraud.