For everyone on this thread making broad proclamations about how SBF won't go to jail because of American corruption--I'll see you back here in a year or two. Then we can have that conversation.<p>In the meantime, I suggest that you consider whether you would reevaluate your priors in any meaningful way if, as I expect, SBF <i>is</i> ultimately prosecuted.
The amount of comments in here who think that SBF is going to walk away scot free is unbelievable. I guess it goes to show how low trust is in the legal system. It's going to be a legal fight all the way -- and SBF has few friends and doesn't have any money - he's likely going to prison or spend the rest of his life in a country where he can't be extradited to the US.<p>Go look at Bernie Madoff as an example of someone who defrauded a lot of people and was much more respected then SBF was. Think people - don't just whine like a bunch of petulant children how the game is rigged.<p>edit: Scott to scot
Oh my goodness no! I'm not sure what SBF thinks he is doing, but he is definitely maximizing his chances of going to jail.<p>He is making his future defense lawyer's job very difficult by committing to a story. The lawyer will be severely constrained from suggesting alternate explanations of the facts to the jury because SBF has already negated so many possible interpretations. Every time SBF overstates an explanation, the prosecutors get that into the record. Every time SBF provably misstates or misleads in an interview, the prosecutors get to say "take a look at this slime ball."<p>When under investigation, you shut up. It's the only smart thing to do.
Everything this idiot says to any random interviewer from any random media outlet is ammunition for his inevitable prosecution. He's already said incriminating things; for instance, his Dealbook Summit interview established some of the predicates for wire fraud.<p>Perhaps as importantly, every element of his story that he tells constrains his defense. Whatever arbitrary "facts" he lays out in public now, he won't be able to effectively contradict at trial. He's pinning himself down a variety of ways.<p>It takes years to bring a complicated federal financial services fraud case to trial. We're barely into the top of the first inning. Be suspicious of people with bad analyses of what's happening right now, like the idea that SBF is somehow serving his own best interests by speaking publicly about this stuff.
I'm not really sure I buy it. It seems to me more likely that he's just still incompetent and sort of addicted to the spotlight. He was one of the most popular and well-respected people in the world in a certain sub-community and he did that all while playing league of legends every day.<p>It might be some master plan, but it really also might just be him not wanting to accept that it's over.<p>I have a hard time imagining any remotely rational person wouldn't realize to just not say anything to anyone without a lawyer present.
Just going to point out that federal grand juries are secretive as hell. And they take a super long time. FTX imploded weeks ago and I don't expect an indictment to be handed down before the end of 2023.<p>Theranos started to collapse in 2015 before going bankrupt in 2018. And the founders were only convicted now. 7 years after journalist and investors started really looking into them.
Notice just how little has been said by other top FTX/Alameda people? Gary Wang, Nishad Singh, Caroline Ellison, Sam Trabucco, etc? Those people are trying to not go to jail.<p>Sam seems to be taking an approach of "they cant indict me if I dont stop confessing to crimes".
Publicly admitting to crimes while firing to top flight law firm, which you later replace with one of your parents academic colleagues is maybe not what a sane persom in a “singular pursuit of not going to jail” does.<p>Sure, he's reputation washing, but that’s less to avoid jail and more for future business opportunities, whether or not he goes to jail.
Seems like the real winner here is coffeezilla. I hadn't heard of him until this disaster, now he's everywhere.<p><a href="https://socialblade.com/youtube/c/coffeezilla" rel="nofollow">https://socialblade.com/youtube/c/coffeezilla</a>
I'm guessing he's spoken to lawyers, and what he says is a result of some locked in strategy. (Though he also seems to be a professional rambler and deflecter.) However, I'm surprised that SBF hasn't played a card like "while I didn't know it at the time, I have now investigated and concluded that..." to (a) show he was sincerely clueless and (b) set the stage for muddying what he knew before and after blowing up.<p>If I end up in SBF's situation (it can happen to anyone, right?) why should I not use this tactic? Would admitting knowing <i>anything</i> hurt his case, even if the knowledge was gained after leaving the company?
The central issue is whether FTX user funds were used in violation of the terms of service. Whenever that question comes up, the open and honest SBF rolls over and plays dumb. He doesn't have the details. His dashboard didn't show it. He lost track of "important things." He doesn't "know what to tell you."<p>Everything was an "embarrassing mistake."<p>SBF's problem is that the only way for FTX to become insolvent is that user funds were being used in violation of the terms of service.
There may be more parallels to SBF and Jon Corzine than to Bernie Madoff. SBF and Corzine ran companies that were regulated by the CFTC which requires segmentation of client funds from corporate funds. Both SBF and Corzine failed to provide the appropriate systems and safeguards to prevent the intermingling of client and corporate funds. Only time and evidence will tell if SBF knowingly and intentionally siphoned client funds for nefarious intent. The situation can get more murky if usage/terms of services policies existed for the alt-coins that were used. In Madoffs' case, there was a point that no investments were being made and new money was being used to pay/boost returns of existing clients which doesn't seem to be the case with FTX.
This guy is the classical example of the old saying "Honesty is the key to success. If you can fake that, you have made it.". He is probably working on getting pregnant too.
He is clearly making himself a scapegoat to protect himself from the wrath of the politically powerful. One thing to burn rich people, quite another to burn politicians who chair the financial services committee.<p>Anyone who says, “what’s he doing!? He must be stupid or crazy!” is either dishonest ir not very perceptive.<p>He is throwing himself under the bus in hopes of an eventual pardon or just to avoid pissing off the powers that be, who he helped secure with his kick backs (“contributions”).<p>But the foolish masses are likely to buy the whole, “he is stupid” narrative.<p>Clearly, he is not,
Is this believable? Has a crack team of Lawyers really told him "definitely run your mouth on every podcast you can on the off chance that this will cause hung juries or mistrials in your future criminal cases" instead of "shut your damn mouth now"??
This is a ridiculous piece. SBF isn’t some supergenius who is now executing a brilliant plan to avoid prison. He’s a naive idiot who is digging his own grave and will end up behind bars or dead. There is a 0% chance that he steals billions from rich and connected people and manages to skate because he blabs to a few people on social media and tosses a few pennies to some politicians. He stole billions, he’s going to prison if he doesn’t end up dead first.
I would correct the title to "doing everything in persuit to minimize any negative judicial outcome possible".<p>Maddoff was portrayed as cold hearted criminal and got 100+ years in jail. SBF is trying as hard as he can to paint a different picture for himself. And the media/society are giving him this chance.<p>Negligence/amateurism is way better image than cold hearted criminal intent.
CoffeZilla got a public statement from SBF that it was business-as-usual to comingle funds between customers using the margin trading product and the savings account product. That's a huge admission.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_jPzBZSIo" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_jPzBZSIo</a>
Coffeezilla actually crashed his call a third time and managed to get him to accidentally admit to fraud. I imagine that call might even be used in the court case as evidence when it happens
I imagine that, behind the scenes, SBF and Ellison are each lawyering up with the intent to throw the other under the bus. If so, then may they both succeed!<p>I also suspect that SBF finds it inconceivable that he cannot talk his way out of this situation with the same approach that he used to talk his way into it. He will find, however, that the skepticism is much more overt and widespread than when everything seemed to be going swimmingly.
"And when those people have requested an interview with Bankman-Fried, he’s turned it down."<p>The very next quote from SBF: "... I'm not sure that will happen by the 13th. But when it does, I will testify."<p>This article is contradicting itself.
They kind of hint at this but I think it is really a mix of staying out of jail and saving face a bit. I do think he cares about his reputation.<p>That being said, the notion that he is going to get out of this seems a bit silly to me. So far his best attempt has been to claim that he really just had no idea what was going on. It seems extremely unlikely to me that either: 1) that was in fact the case! or 2) it isn't the case but somehow there isn't any evidence to the contrary!
Of course, he has a professor father lecturing laws in Stanford university, I guess they had a plan right when the fiasco hits, any move since then must be designed meticulously to avoid being charged, what a shame.<p>Comparing to SBF, Holmes is nothing.
Someone else's thesis (quoted at the very end), no analysis, just a bunch of links. Interesting topic so the article is readable by default, but this feels like a seriously low-quality submission. Am I off-base here?
Every time SBF speaks publicly or gives an interview is further proof he is delusional or an idiot because he either hasn’t retained personal legal counsel or is ignoring their advice.<p>Any lawyer will tell you to shut the F up [1]. No good can come from speaking at this point.<p>This case is so egregious (ie stealing custodial assets) that he will spend the rest of his life in prison or on the run.<p>If something is a grey area you might be able to buy your way out politically but this isn’t it.<p>Classic example: after the Mar-e-Lago raid Trump made statements about how those documents were his and he declassified them. What did this do? It removed the possible defense of not knowing they were there. And he gained what? Nothing. At best it was political points with people who were on his side anyway.<p>There is nothing smart about SBF talking.<p>[1]: <a href="https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o</a>
SBF would be wise to follow some very simple advise: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Everything you do to cover up a crime ends up being a crime, too.
And he is very carefully setting the tone with carefully constructed statements that this ISN'T what he did and it makes me sick. He knows the more he says things like:<p>"A mistake that I feel pretty embarrassed to have made [is that] I substantially underestimated what the scale of a market crash could look like,”<p>Or<p>"I had embarrassingly little knowledge about what was going on,”<p>The more he can claim the innocent 'i was just to naive and dumb' to have done this on purpose and 'I've learned my lesson' BS that all will be hard to indict without solid evidence. I don't believe for one second what that loser says right now. Cuff him!<p>He is a sociopath and should be in jail for long time for all the immense harm he caused in running a known Ponzi of literally billions. He is no different than Madoff or Holmes. Acting like a messiah and a fake genius for all these years while full well knowing he and his cohorts were fraudulently offering unrealistic investment returns. Living rich off people's deposits they will never get back.<p>Where is his ex girlfriend? The one who actually RAN Alameda. Why are we not hearing about her at all? She should probably be first in cuffs
how much time should he do, HN? he seemed to willingly avoid thinking of money as real. but we also have a financial system where this could even happen. i feel those 2 factors should be weighed against each other.
Does anyone blame him for doing everything he can to avoid going to jail? The amount of money that has gone missing and the amount of money some of the victims will still have this is almost certainly going to end up with a criminal case.
The worst part is you just know this guy has 100x what any of us have hidden away in defrauded gold bars or whatever and that he will face no consequences for it while a poor person who steals a pack of gum will go to prison for years.
Don't know for sure about SBF, but he legitimately could be what he shows (someone over his head).<p>I get big cruelty lynch mob or hit-job vibes from TFA author though.
>Everything Sam Bankman-Fried is doing is in singular pursuit of not going to jail<p>That's weird-shouldn't he be doing everything that's possible to go to jail? Everybody would like to go to jail.
I read the TOS. SBF is deliberately getting people to focus on "e-money" part rather than "digital assets" like crypto.<p>Y'all got tricked by focusing on the wires and fiat currency path. The TOS make it clear that's all play money. Only digital assets appear to be protected by TOS. Coffeezilla managed to lock him down on that by using the correct terminology and asset classes, but most of the interviewers did not.<p>Based on the TOS customers agree to, it's not clear to me there was ever any agreement Alemeda couldn't bet the farm using customer fiat as collateral. Digital Assets appear to only apply to non-fiat digital assets -- the TOS seperately defined fiat balance as 'e-money' with significantly weaker as far as I can tell protections.<p>That is to pin him on fraud it may be necessary to show those that delivered crypto outside of the margin / borrowing TOS had their money stolen. I think Coffeezilla got him to admit this, but even then I think he may have weasled out of it by only talking about dollars which don't appear to be protected by the contract. He is crafting a very carefully executed story where he tricks you into thinking you have a 'gotcha' but all he did was admit to stuff customers agreed to in TOS; and thus you see the real intelligence of SBF as a master of redirection shining.
On which ground would SBF be prosecuted?<p>From what I understand, dealing only with unregulated crypto assets mean he didn’t have any obligation on how he invested those (nor provide any safety guards for his investors).
Can we stop with the obsession over this dude / FTX / crypto? I know that's like asking Reddit to stop making everything a joke, but here's hoping maybe we're mature enough to stop gossiping and praying for someone's downfall. Life is too short to spend your time obsessed with negativity.