return to table of content

Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years in prison

yokem55
141 replies
2h28m

If someone isn't a violent threat to society, there isn't much social benefit to keeping folks locked up longer then 20-ish years. 20-25 (assuming he gets the 15% off for good behavior the feds allow) is plenty.

nkozyra
66 replies
2h24m

I have to ask: does 20 years provide more social benefit than 10? 5? Surely there's diminishing returns on imprisonment.

As a deterrent and as a punitive, I get it, but even life sentences don't seem to deter crimes that can yield those punishments.

Galacta7
4 replies
2h4m

Retribution shouldn't be the driving force, but I can understand it from a societal standpoint. Victims and the families of the victims will want to see a punishment applied for the harm they've suffered. It's in the state's interest to make sure that it's not excessively applied, but to degree there's a mix of correction and retribution that has to be taken into account at sentencing. One person's spite is another's justice.

I think that if too many people see retribution as no longer being applied, some people will start to take matters into their own hands to seek vengeance.

The state has an interest in preventing that and assuring retribution is applied as evenly as possible, and counterbalanced by other mitigating factors (e.g. the degree of offense, the circumstances under which it occurred, likelihood of reoffending, penitence of the guilty, etc.).

jimkleiber
3 replies
1h48m

I find your points quite interesting. If I'm understanding correctly, that if the victims, families of victims, or frankly, anyone who feels pain and wants to seek retribution, don't believe that the retribution is sufficient, then they may take action into their own hands. I witnessed this living in Tanzania, where if people didn't trust the police to arrest and punish someone who stole, sometimes the people would track down and seek mob justice (violence?) against the person who stole.

So if the government would take a true rehabilitative approach, and maybe arrest people but treat them well, try to help them so they don't do the same behaviors in the future, a percentage of the population might see that as insufficient and take retribution into their own hands.

You've helped me realize why I've actually shifted my professional focus from wanting to change politics to wanting to change culture. Seems a lot of being in government is doing what the people want, and if the people want retribution, then the government has to follow it.

I hope for (and am working towards) a world in which we help people know our pain not by trying to cause the same pain to them, but by expressing our pain to them with more granularity, because the pain they'd feel as a result of retribution will never be the exact same pain we feel, as our contexts are way too complex to replicate exactly.

I really appreciate your comment, thank you for helping me think more deeply about this.

bombcar
2 replies
1h9m

I once read something that part of the point of government "management of crime" whatever you want to call it is to suppress vigilantism.

It may not be entirely descriptive, but it certainly is part of it. At some point Gary Plauché becomes common.

jimkleiber
1 replies
41m

This makes a lot of sense to me. And I appreciate you sharing the reference to Gary Plauché, I had never heard the story before.

bombcar
0 replies
23m

One of the most "unstabalizing" things in a society is a person or people with nothing to lose. You could make an argument for much of government being reducing the number of people with nothing to lose.

rootusrootus
3 replies
1h39m

IMO an important component of punishment is convincing society that justice has been served. Too light a punishment, and vigilantism will become prevalent.

jimkleiber
2 replies
1h24m

Your comment and another above has me thinking that it's almost like vicarious punishment. "If you don't punch them, I will, so you better punch them hard enough."

rootusrootus
1 replies
54m

It makes sense. We empower the government to act on our behalf, including with violence. Arguably it is one of the fundamental reasons for government to exist.

jimkleiber
0 replies
30m

And I wonder if certain calculations, like preventing vigilantism, tend to act on the behalf of not the majority of a population but an extreme few. Or in other words, if 95% of the population support an idea but 5% violently opposes it, does the government cater more to the 95% or 5%? At what point are government officials afraid that the 5% will commit violent acts against society or them and their loved ones and therefore cater to their perspective more than the majority?

dartos
3 replies
2h5m

What’s the difference?

mlyle
2 replies
2h1m

Deterrence makes someone not want to commit the crime because of fear of the consequences.

Retribution ("spite") is about getting even.

Rehabilitation is about making it so that the person is less likely to offend again when released and more likely to be of positive value to society.

Removal is about locking someone up so they cannot do more crimes.

A good prison system should balance all four.

jimkleiber
0 replies
1h36m

I really appreciate how you mapped out those four concepts and the language you used for them, I feel a lot more clear on it. Thank you.

bee_rider
0 replies
1h45m

I wonder how the measure they measure the deterrence effect, it seems impossible to me. It would be a society-wide thing (hard to come up with an isolated experiment) and it seems like something where people would bring in a ton of bias.

bartread
3 replies
2h1m

I think both of those are flawed views. Not necessarily mistaken, but incomplete. One of the key reasons we imprison people is to prevent them from doing further harm to society: i.e., we put them in prison for our benefit, not theirs. It's definitely good if they're rehabilitated along the way, but rehabilitation isn't necessary for their imprisonment to be a net benefit to society.

johnisgood
2 replies
1h43m

Any thoughts on victimless crimes?

jimkleiber
0 replies
35m

I think it depends on how we define victim, and especially how direct and tangible the harm needs to be to be considered a victim.

But maybe it also has to do with whether people feel victimized. If no one felt victimized, would we punish?

So I imagine it's probably a combination of who feels victimized and who society believes should feel victimized. Because as others may respond, white-collar crime has people who get harmed as a result of the actions, even if it's not as obvious as the person directly punching them in the face.

One could argue that even the fact of breaking the law can harm those who went through great lengths to not break the law.

bombcar
0 replies
1h3m

What is a victimless crime? Speeding? Even though excessive speed is strongly correlated with crash deaths?

Fraud? The money comes from somewhere; someone is harmed by it (Pratchett's Going Postal has a good line on it - "No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.”

recursive
1 replies
1h59m

If you do something for spite, does that mean it's not deterrent?

jimkleiber
0 replies
1h38m

I'll try to find the article, I think the point was that we think we are being violent to others with a conscious intention of trying to prevent future violence, but that most of the time we are doing it with the intention of them knowing our current pain that we think they caused to us, not really thinking much about the future.

So if the spite causes people to feel sufficiently afraid to do the action in the future, maybe it deters people from acting that way?

edit: here's the article...https://aeon.co/ideas/punishment-isnt-about-the-common-good-...

toomuchtodo
18 replies
2h20m

What do you believe Sam would do if granted a shorter sentence, assuming they believe they've done nothing wrong? Who should carry the burden of re-offense without remorse?

People make mistakes, to err is human, and forgiveness should be provided to those with the capacity to change (ie harm less). Compassion is important. But if you don't believe you've done anything wrong, can we not project future potential outcomes? Prison duration is a risk assessment of harm reduction.

EDIT: Prison should still be about rehabilitation and treating humans humanely, to be clear.

gjsman-1000
8 replies
1h51m

EDIT: Prison should still be about rehabilitation and treating humans humanely, to be clear.

No. Prison should be about punishment combined with rehabilitation, neither at the expense of the other.

It is perfectly OK to say that punishment, the infliction of pain, for a crime, is warranted even if it has no rehabilitative value, assuming that it is not demeaning or cruel.

Why? Several reasons:

1. Punishment has it's own value for the sake of justice. A hypothetical: Imagine there was a drug, with a 10% fatality rate, that perfectly rendered the receiver incapable of murder without any other side effects. They just perfectly gain control of their emotions and reason, or something to that effect. If a person goes and murders 50 individuals, but takes the drug and lives; they've been theoretically perfectly rehabilitated and need to be let back into society, right?

If you think, "of course not," you are now admitting that punishment has a value by itself.

EDIT: Also, this hypothetical, actually exists. Imagine this case with SBF. Imagine if the only penalty for his actions, were that he could not run a banking organization ever again, or hold more than $1,000,000 in any account that he controls. Perfectly rehabilitated, my hypothetical with the drug, in one swoop. He will never be able to commit this crime again.

I think I might very well run and do a financial fraud tomorrow. At least I'll enjoy the high life for several years. You are literally telling me, in that case, I could live for years, possibly decades (if I'm Madoff), and my only punishment will be that I can't do it again. After all, it's only about rehabilitation for myself; and to do otherwise would be punishment for punishment's sake.

2. If punishment is not given out fairly, and is only contingent upon rehabilitation; you are ignoring the rights and feelings of the victims and focusing too heavily on the rights and feelings of the criminal. Victims have feelings and rights, and considering they are the harmed, their feelings and rights ought to be first priority, and the criminal's second. Otherwise, victims feel the need to take things into their own hands. Always have, always will, as part of human nature. That's how you get societal meltdown, followed by vigilantism.

jddj
7 replies
1h46m

If you think, "of course not"...

And if you think it sounds reasonable?

While there's some benefit (deterrence) to there being perceived costs to bad behaviour, it's arguable whether punishment for the sake of punishment stands up on its own merits.

In your proposed world, where murderousness is recognised as a treatable illness, it doesn't really seem reasonable to punish to punish or to imprison as a deterrent.

gjsman-1000
6 replies
1h45m

I'll kill your daughter, scatter her remains on the road, take the drug, and see if you think otherwise.

Think about it. Under this hypothetical (which I think is OK, everybody does Trolly Problems all the time), you should be just fine with this result. The deterrence value is there (10% chance of death), I've been rehabilitated permanently so I can be let out a week after I did the murder, it's all good. I might as well add some torture to the mix as well, because the drug will perfectly rehabilitate that too, of course, so it doesn't really matter how I did it either.

nkozyra
2 replies
1h36m

you should be just fine with this result.

Some people are. Some people who have been victimized do forgive and ask for leniency.

There is an emotional and personal aspect to that, but typically we don't set laws that way.

I'd also argue that "it's all good" is not a fair measure for when we consider justice to be served. Practically, when there's nothing left to gain, the scale tips from justice to pure retribution.

gjsman-1000
1 replies
1h33m

Some people are. Some people who have been victimized do forgive and ask for leniency.

I think you're confusing forgiveness with punishment. The two are not incompatible.

If your son hits your daughter, you forgive him immediately (you do not hold hatred or anger in your heart for that action); but you still punish him to deter the future behavior. The two are not incompatible, or at odds with one another. Similarly, it is not incompatible that a man who committed mass murder might be forgiven by the families (in that they won't hold hate in their hearts, or use his name as a curse), but the families may also simultaneously desire that the individual be removed from society.

Practically, when there's nothing left to gain, the scale tips from justice to pure retribution.

Retribution is part of justice, and is not at odds with it. If I steal $500, I owe $500 as part of justice. If I steal $1,000; I owe $1,000 as part of justice. If I steal $10 billion dollars, a sum I shall never repay, I can only beg forgiveness and pay the most I reasonably can, for a reasonable amount of my life. For justice, at that point, recognizes that a society which allowed me to steal $10 billion in the first place, has some responsibility as well, reducing the required amount for retribution.

nkozyra
0 replies
1h11m

I think you're confusing forgiveness with punishment. The two are not incompatible.

Not at all. You said "you should be fine with it," which is really "acceptance" rather than forgiveness, although they go hand in hand.

My point was simply that being fine with it or not being fine with it as an personal, emotional response typically does not guide modern societal rules.

Retribution is part of justice, and is not at odds with it.

Inherently this is probably true, but we actually have laws that are intended to specifically exclude that as a factor, depending on jurisdiction.

jddj
2 replies
1h28m

In this case, the deterrent makes sense.

The punishment so that the universe feels more fair to me isn't all that useful. Maybe as you suggest the mob lynchings in this case are unavoidable but I'm not convinced.

Happily (both for those who want to subjectively See Justice Done, and for those who upon reflection find it all a little perverse), the two don't really seem to be separable beyond a certain point.

gjsman-1000
1 replies
1h27m

It might work for you, but are you telling me that if you were the murderer in question, you wouldn't be afraid that the family wouldn't assassinate you at first opportunity if this happened to their daughter?

A heavy sentence is safety for the criminal as well.

jddj
0 replies
1h21m

That seems completely orthogonal to the point I disagreed with, which was (loosely, sorry) that punishment purely for punishment's sake is a social good.

nkozyra
7 replies
2h18m

What do you believe Sam would do if granted a shorter sentence, assuming they believe they've done nothing wrong?

Ostensibly the same thing as after a 22 year sentence, just later.

sangnoir
6 replies
2h8m

The difference is society gets 12 additional years of safety which it wouldn't get otherwise. Ostensibly.

nkozyra
3 replies
2h1m

The difference is society gets 12 additional years of safety which it wouldn't get otherwise.

Naturally, by this logic I have to ask: why not 32 years? 52? 102? Aren't we doing society a disservice by ever allowing criminals to leave prison?

Ostensibly

I chose this word carefully, because I think a lot of our preconceived notions on criminal behavior have not been validated by the real world, including the deterrent effects of long-term imprisonments.

sangnoir
2 replies
1h39m

Naturally, by this logic I have to ask: why not 32 years? 52? 102?

Because the sentencing judge applied the guidelines provided by law as written by legislature, considered case-law, the specifics of this case and applied their professional judgement to come up with a 25-year sentence as an appropriate one for the crimes committed. If the defendant disagrees, they can appeal the sentence to get a second opinion.

You're attempting to reductio ad absurdum prison sentences - I'll apply it to your argument in turn - why send guilty people to prison at all? What's the difference between 1 day imprisonment and 60, or 6000? A sense of proportion is the difference between a black-and-white world and the one we strive for in reality.

nkozyra
1 replies
1h30m

Because the sentencing judge applied the guidelines provided by law as written

We know the mechanics of why it was chosen. What I was asking was by your logic, 22 is less protective of society than 102, which makes me question the validity of "it protects society" reasoning. Why protect less when we have a quantifiably greater level of protection?

You're attempting to reductio ad absurdum prison sentences

This is incredibly dismissive. We have arbitrary sentencing guidelines. They are based on reasoning, but that doesn't mean they are correct. They are fluid, change from locale to locale, and have unpredictable efficacy.

why send people to prison at all? What's the difference between 1 day imprisonment and 60

You see, I don't think that's reductio ad absurdum at all. It's a valid question. You can argue for it and against it, but it isn't absurd or contradictory on its face.

A sense of proportion is the difference between a black-and-white world

All you're saying here is 6000 > 1. We know this. I'm asking why 6000 is right, 1 is wrong, and why we throw away the other 5998.

sangnoir
0 replies
26m

What I was asking was by your logic, 22 is less protective of society than 102, which makes me question the validity of "it protects society" reasoning

The answer to all variations of your underlying question in your post is because when handing down sentences, there are multiple considerations. We don't only consider societal safety - if we did we'd just jail everyone for life.

6000 is right because it is the right point of balance between keeping society safe and the rights of the imprisoned, while reflecting the seriousness of the crime without being cruel or unusual. Prison sentences inherently take away rights from the prisoner, and this is yet another thing that's thrown onto the pile of considerations for tradeoffs which individually lengthen or shorten the term of imprisonment. It's not a binary decision like you propose (imprisoned vs not imprisoned for any crime), but finding the right balance point (likely region or volume) on multidimensional axes.

I'm not a trial judge, but I can think of the following factors off thr top of my head: nature of crime committed, remorse, amount of harm, restitution (if any), sentencing guidelines in the law, probability of recidivism, safety of society, safety of defendant, sentences issued on similar cases in the past, appeals on similar cases in the past, prosecutor sentencing recommendations, defense sentencing recommendations, time already served, culpability, the number of charges defendant is found guilty of and whether they can be served simultaneously or not, etc. You're ignoring all of these and projecting the sentence to a single dimension (societal safety).

You haven't answered why you think we imprison people in the first place (or if we should). We cant have a fruitful discussion about which sentence durations are "better" without knowing what metrics we are measuring.

bombcar
1 replies
1h36m

What safety does society get with him in prison that it wouldn't get with him outside prison and restricted from any "financial" type job?

I don't really see the harm in him working at McDonalds, for example, except maybe he'd embezzle from the till, so put him on fries.

tsimionescu
0 replies
22m

If he's free, he could very well pretend he's someone else and skirt the restrictions, or convince someone else to act as his pawn.

latexr
0 replies
1h31m

People make mistakes, to err is human

Hard to make that argument when discussing fraud, which by definition is intentional deception.

thereddaikon
6 replies
2h3m

At some point its not about deterrent or social benefit but justice. People can say its not fair or productive for people like him to be locked up forever. Well, what about their victims? How many people's financial futures were destroyed by SBF? Is it fair to all those people that he will get to live a normal life? And likely a comfortable well off one at that. He already had a privileged family and I have no doubt it will be easy for him to profit off his story once he gets out. The hardly seems right.

bawolff
2 replies
1h57m

Well, what about their victims? How many people's financial futures were destroyed by SBF? Is it fair to all those people that he will get to live a normal life?

That sounds more like retribution than justice. I.E. wanting to cause him pain because he caused pain in others.

Of course, i don't have a better answer by any means.

seanmcdirmid
0 replies
1h52m

It is deterrence: it sends the message of don't do the same thing or you'll wind up in prison for a long time. It really isn't retribution, this kind of enforcement is meant to scare other potential white collar criminals into not breaking the law as well.

mnau
0 replies
1h30m

Retribution is one of justifications for punishment: retribution; incapacitation; deterrence; rehabilitation and reparation.

Retribution is part of the justice.

batch12
1 replies
2h0m

Does his jail time do anything that helps his victims other than make them feel good? Are there other ways he could make reparations?

TheOtherHobbes
0 replies
1h27m

It protects potential future victims - both from SBF and from those who might want to emulate him.

Which is why I think the sentence is too low.

There are other ways he could make reparations. One would be to have one-to-one meetings with his victims, where they tell him in person how his actions affected them.

There's a fair chance it would bounce right off SBF, because he clearly has serious personality issues.

Then again, maybe not.

ziddoap
0 replies
1h51m

A prison sentence is punishment, not justice.

Justice would be making the victims whole.

paulcole
5 replies
2h12m

Is it a deterrent? SBF knew Madoff got 150 years.

The perceived benefit of getting rich and famous can make it easy to overlook the downsides of getting caught.

nkozyra
4 replies
2h8m

SBF knew Madoff got 150 years.

My perception of some of these financial crimes - Madoff included - is they start off with a small slip, rather than a full dive into fraud. A lot of times it snowballs while the person responsible keeps searching for a way out.

I wonder at what point SBF would have even said what he was doing was immoral. If you're running a Ponzi scheme you think you can salvage, would you compare yourself to Madoff, or would you think "I'm trying to set things right"?

yau8edq12i
2 replies
1h50m

So what are you saying? That prison isn't a deterrent for financial crimes?

nkozyra
0 replies
1h39m

I absolutely did not say that.

Rather, I'm suggesting that in the eye of the beholder, a very clear case of fraud might be self-perceived as a bump on the road to lawful, legitimate financial dealings.

So the question is if SBF didn't see himself as committing the same crimes as Madoff (even if he was), would Madoff's sentencing and fate even register as a potential deterrent?

TheOtherHobbes
0 replies
1h24m

We don't know to what extent prison is a deterrent. It's classic survivor bias - we only get to see the cases where the deterrent failed, not where it succeeded.

skulk
0 replies
1h55m

From what I read on Wikipedia, Madoff didn't make a single investment with the money given to his wealth management program. He deposited it all into a bank account and paid people out of the same bank account. This is notably different from SBF's case.

lapetitejort
4 replies
2h12m

I've always been in favor of the Norway sentencing model [0]. 21 years is the max prison sentence, with 5 year extensions possible. Punishment must always carry the possibility of rehabilitation and return to society, even in the most extreme cases. A small amount of people will show no remorse or willingness to improve and will remain in prison for life.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway

mrkeen
2 replies
1h59m

with 5 year extensions possible.

Ouch! I hadn't heard of this before, and I gotta say I'm not a fan.

I agree with it only in principle; it seems ripe for injustice in all practical details.

If you maintain your innocence, is that a lack of remorse? Can you be any kind of 'model citizen' in prison - engaging in charity or volunteer work? Who brings the +5 year charge or provides evidence for it? The prison staff who don't find your personable, or the shrink who doesn't think you're taking the sessions seriously (if shrink visits in prison exist)?

professoretc
1 replies
1h47m

I agree with it only in principle; it seems ripe for injustice in all practical details.

Yep, instead of "you definitely get out of prison after X years have passed" you instead get "you get out of prison in 21 years! (or never, depending on how we feel)".

lapetitejort
0 replies
1h29m

Per the wiki page, the five year extensions are for the indeterminate penalty, not for any prison sentence. The alternate to this sentence is "We will kill you in prison" or "You will die in prison".

mlyle
0 replies
2h4m

I think that might be the best normal path, but I think there's a (relatively small) population of offenders who we can know have no real prospect of rehabilitation.

Perhaps the more important distinction: if we're going to let people out of prison eventually, we should make sure that prison is a place that is set up in the best way to make that eventual return to society successful. Right now, it feels like we do the opposite.

hintymad
3 replies
2h8m

I guess the nuance is that SBF can get paroles if he behaved well. That is, this 25 years can be punitive, but he will also has a chance to earn some trust and reduce the punishment.

anamexis
1 replies
2h5m

Federal prisons do not have parole.

volkl48
0 replies
1h58m

There is a possible "good behavior" reduction, but the maximum of that works out to around 15% off the sentence. He'll serve at least 21 of those years or so.

harambae
0 replies
1h50m

He can’t get parole, but can get RDAP, halfway house, first step act, good behavior (15%), in theory a rule 35b (not sure what he knows), and whatever else gets invented in the future. Maybe a commuted sentence but probably not for a while.

Probably out in 17 years which is still a long time.

I was most surprised by the recommendation of medium security. Not sure how well Sam will do in a medium.

cccybernetic
0 replies
1h57m

This presumes a theory of justice where "social benefit" is relevant at all — not everyone accepts this.

bawolff
0 replies
1h54m

I have to ask: does 20 years provide more social benefit than 10? 5? Surely there's diminishing returns on imprisonment.

Arguably, the social benefit is to deter more major crimes.

If all crimes were X year sentences, then once you comitted one crime you may as well continue, since the punishment is the same either way.

KingOfCoders
0 replies
2h8m

The problem is, criminals think they will not be caught. There is a deterrent, but the difference between 10, 20 and 30 years is abstract for someone who thinks they are not caught.

FabHK
0 replies
1h34m

So, legal theory provides three reasons for punishment:

1) revenge ("an eye for an eye") - that's not considered a factor anymore today except as an upside-limit on the punishment, ie, the punishment should not exceed the damage caused. Here, the damage caused was immense, so don't think that'll be a limiting factor.

2) specific prevention - keep that particular perpetrator off the streets, so they can't commit crimes again. There's some argument that old people commit fewer crimes, so when the perpetrator is old enough, one can let them go. Maybe one shouldn't let SBF out until he's older than Madoff was...

3) general prevention, aka deterrence - make sure that the punishment (in conjunction with the probability of being caught) is sufficient to discourage others from committing the crime. This is problematic as apparently most perpetrators seem to think that they won't be caught (which is why capital punishment doesn't necessarily reduce crime rates). I think in this case it's good that the many, many crypto "operators" see that there is some downside in scamming people.

ApolloFortyNine
0 replies
2h10m

Imo 5 means 3 and that is too low for most serious crimes, it feels almost like an incentive to just not get caught, more than an incentive to not do it all.

Losing 20 years of your life though will have a drastic effect on the rest of your life. As it should for some crimes.

Or is your argument we should skip from 10 to death, I'm honestly not sure.

arrowsmith
20 replies
2h26m

there isn't much social benefit to keeping folks locked up

Deterrent

rileymat2
8 replies
2h21m

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf

Prisons are good for punishing criminals and keeping them off the street, but prison sentences (particularly long sentences) are unlikely to deter future crime. Prisons actually may have the opposite effect: Inmates learn more effective crime strategies from each other, and time spent in prison may desensitize many to the threat of future imprisonment. See “Understanding the Relationship Between Sentencing and Deterrence” for additional discussion on prison as an ineffective deterrent.

———

5. There is no proof that the death penalty deters criminals. According to the National Academy of Sciences, “Research on the deterrent effect of capital punishment is uninformative about whether capital punishment increases, decreases, or has no effect on homicide rates.”

MadnessASAP
2 replies
2h12m

That is certainly correct for "street crime" where premeditation and risk reward analysis aren't a part of the equation.

I have some pretty serious doubts about it when it comes to large financial crimes where both those things are absolutely part of the process. A death sentence probably isn't going to stop someone from killing another person, they're already off the deep end of irrationality. However 25 years of prison is probably going to be a significant deterrent to someone choosing to commit billions worth of fraud, maybe the profit margin isn't that important.

riversflow
0 replies
1h45m

Yeah, I really think comparing common street crime with high financial crime is Apples and Oranges. Common criminals don’t have much to lose, yes going to prison sucks, but it means less when you live in low income housing with other people, can’t afford basic shit and/or are in significant mental distress. On the other hand Financial criminals usually have a LOT to lose, and to get into the position to commit those crimes they likely have a degree of rationality that’s less guaranteed than in street crime.

Frankly, I think we need a lot more of this kind of punishment to get more trust back into our high-trust society. More rich people need to go to prison for crimes against society, because honestly it feels more like Madoff and SBF were one offs rather than business as usual.

commakozzi
0 replies
2h2m

We ALL know/knew who Bernie Madoff was and what happened to him. Are you sure your logic is sound here?

gizajob
1 replies
2h12m

Yes but at the same time, anyone attempting to set up legitimate crypto exchanges and engage in the kinds of shenanigans SBF indulged in will know to check with their lawyers before moving now, because they'll have to think "Will doing this (possibly fraudulent activity) land me in jail for 25 years like SBF?" - that's a decent deterrent.

rileymat2
0 replies
1h55m

I don’t know if I disagree, because I have not thought seriously about the risk/reward.

My point along with the grand parent is that at a certain point it is more costly than it is worth in deterrence. And the data backs that up, generally.

But what that point is, I have no idea.

ReptileMan
1 replies
1h40m

5. There is no proof that the death penalty deters criminals. According to the National Academy of Sciences, “Research on the deterrent effect of capital punishment is uninformative about whether capital punishment increases, decreases, or has no effect on homicide rates.”

Capital punishment is cheap though. And more humane than life sentence. Actually I think that we should return some form of corporal punishment and shorten prison sentences for non violent crimes. Subject SBF to Singapore style caning every month and 2-3 years in prison, forbid him to ever work with other people's money and be done with him.

rileymat2
0 replies
6m

Capital punishment is cheap though.

Getting capital punishment right is certainly not cheap, if you are worried about the finality of it.

hmate9
0 replies
1h38m

It obviously deters crime. Look at it this way. If maximum prison sentence was 5 minutes, would you see more or less crime happening?

yokem55
7 replies
2h25m

If 20+ years isn't enough of a deterrent, I seriously doubt even more would be.

arrowsmith
6 replies
2h21m

I didn't say he should get more. I think 25 years is totally reasonable.

xvector
5 replies
2h13m

I can't think of any cases where someone would be deterred by 25 years in prison, but not, say, 8 years in prison.

digital_sawzall
3 replies
1h54m

I would easily go to jail for 8 years for $50+ million. 25 years would not be worth it to me for any amount.

I am from El Paso, which is on the border with Mexico and grew up with many kids whose parents were smugglers and cartel affiliated.

I know several parents who went to jail for ~10 years while were were in elementary school, the kids never wanted for anything, and then when the parents got out and started capital intensive business.

One parent did 12 years and got out to start a a series of high end mexican restaurants, one started a steakhouse, one bought a small hotel, one started a commercial construction company.

It's all part of the game, just how startup founders grind for years for the money.

yau8edq12i
2 replies
1h46m

Honestly? I sincerely doubt you, or anyone would actually, really, for realsies, go to prison for eight years for $50M. Anyone would beg to be released after a few weeks.

robswc
0 replies
1h41m

I too think that people underestimate how much prison would absolutely suck. Especially if you lead a life that is otherwise crime-free.

digital_sawzall
0 replies
1h22m

That is a complete middle class mindset. Jail is cool in the hood. I've done a few months for stupid stuff when I was young and it's not that bad.

People risk 10 years for robbing bands for a couple thousand. A guaranteed $10 million would have lines around the block for volunteers in the neighborhood I grew up in.

FabHK
0 replies
55m

You have little imagination. I was going to expand, but sibling comment expressed it well already.

kemayo
1 replies
2h21m

In terms of "ruins your life", anything past a few years does that.

Speaking purely for myself, I don't feel much difference in the deterrent effect from the punishment being 5 years or 25 years. Either one would utterly wreck everything about my life, and although the latter is worse it's not enough so to change my decisions.

rwmj
0 replies
2h11m

If he gets out in 5 years he'll be doing the same thing. He showed no remorse or understanding that he did anything wrong. A 25 year sentence means we've got 20 more years of public safety.

ViewTrick1002
0 replies
2h24m

Has never been shown to work when studying the impact of "harsh punishments".

shiftpgdn
19 replies
2h27m

I think ruining thousands of lives through fraud without remorse constitutes a threat to society. He should never see the light of day again.

floor2
8 replies
2h17m

What lives did he ruin?

The USA has an incredibly robust, tightly monitored and regulated financial market. The SEC, FDIC and associated regulators and auditors carefully control bank reserves, prosecute insider trading, prevent and insure against fraud.

Some people decided to opt-out of that system and send their money to an unregulated entity in the Bahamas to buy imaginary money without government oversight.

Honestly the government shouldn't have intervened here at all. The people who lost money should have been laughed at and told that's why you put your money in the regulated market. If you intentionally try to avoid taxes, anti-money laundering regulations, audits and securities law by buying crypto overseas, then taxpayer resources don't go bail you out.

shiftpgdn
5 replies
2h13m

If you ask to borrow $500 and I give it to you, and you run off with the money with no intent to ever pay me back, did you commit fraud? Or was I just a rube who should have known better?

You seem to wish to live in a zero trust world model where everyone is out to scam everyone at all times and "caveat emptor" if you do get scammed. We should do our best as a society to not turn into that.

robin_reala
2 replies
2h8m

Caveat emptor. Emptor is “buyer”, caveat “beware”.

shiftpgdn
0 replies
1h47m

Thanks, I got caught by auto-correct. :)

bee_rider
0 replies
1h59m

Caveat emperor: I’m not worried about being defrauded because my legions will beat up anybody who does so.

schiem
1 replies
2h5m

I'm reading their comment as the opposite - there are mechanisms for a high trust society in place (which is good), but if you go out of your way to opt out of it then you're on your own.

mrguyorama
0 replies
57m

The difference is there is no such thing as "unregulated" in the concept of fraud. Doing fraud is illegal. Even if FTX had done all the paperwork to be compliant, it would still be illegal fraud.

Same as there's no place where murder is allowed. You can't "opt out" of parts of society. It's not even "take it or leave it", society is "take it or get out of our reach"

dvsfish
0 replies
2h6m

I'm not sure I fully agree that we should just sit by and let them be robbed, but the point you make about the government doing nothing is an interesting one as it would be great marketing against a disruptive currency.

brvsft
0 replies
2h5m

I agree. However, I think there's something to be said about how people don't understand what kind of protections are afforded to them by regulation.

A lot of these people were likely acting in some level of good faith, assuming that a company so big it could afford a Super Bowl commercial starring Larry David would never scam them. I know, it's stupid, but people don't understand where the guardrails are, what FDIC insurance really is, what sort of insurance exists on retail brokerage accounts, etc. And they didn't just lose money off of crypto losing value, they lost beyond that amount off of this business co-mingling funds when they were not supposed to.

But I do not feel that badly for anyone whose life was 'ruined' over this for one big reason: they were trying to get rich quick. That's the fact that underpins so much investment in crypto. BTC to the moon! SHTC to the moon! ETCC to the moon! These people were hoping for their 'investments' (speculative gamblings) to explode in value. And they weren't planning on sharing any of it with you or me, not beyond what they're legally required to through taxes (and sometimes, not even that, like you say as well).

zone411
7 replies
2h8m

All creditors are expected to be repaid in full, though based on Nov 2022 crypto prices.

solumunus
1 replies
2h0m

You're not repaid in full unless all your assets are returned, which would be of significantly higher value now than when they were stolen.

rootusrootus
0 replies
1h33m

Exactly this. If you gave FTX bitcoin, the only way to be repaid is in bitcoin. You did not give them dollars.

browningstreet
1 replies
2h7m

This keeps getting repeated... does anyone beside the defense attorney support this statement?

The victim impact testimony of ruined lives doesn't align with it.

scrlk
0 replies
2h3m

FTX claims are being sold for 96 cents on the dollar, so there's high expectation that creditors will be paid in full.

jnwatson
0 replies
2h2m

The judge provided a good counterargument: if a thief burgles a bank, goes to Vegas and doubles his money and gives the original amount back to the bank, does that deserve punishment?

denimnerd42
0 replies
2h3m

There's the loss of liquidity for years and loss of opportunity cost. It's not victimless by far.

HWR_14
0 replies
1h45m

So he stole stuff in 2022 at a low point, and now his victims are going to be paid 30% the cost of what it would take to rebuy it? That's "repaid in full" in your mind? Losing 70% of their BTC?

swyx
1 replies
2h22m

not to be too unsympathetic but if those people he defrauded (which yes is a very bad thing) were all crypto degens gambling on things they knew they shouldnt be gambling on, does that change the calculus at all

COGlory
0 replies
2h19m

No

vitiral
12 replies
2h21m

Lying is a form of violence and so is stealing. Not physical violence mind you, but violence nonetheless.

stonogo
8 replies
2h16m

"Violence" is physical. Without a physical component, there is no violence. It's the entire point of the word.

vitiral
4 replies
2h12m

So screaming at someone is not violence?

Definitions vary depending on context. I think of violence as a spectrum. Talking peacefully and negotiating is extremely low violence. Threats etc are more. All our war and atomics are about the limit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence?wprov=sfla1

Some definitions are somewhat broader, such as the World Health Organization's definition of violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."

Violence IMO is anything which causes harm or can be used to force a condition.

stonogo
1 replies
1h41m

No, screaming at someone is not violence. The WHO definition you cite also restricts its definition to physical force. If screaming were violence, we'd have prisons full of sports fans after every football game.

"Harming someone" is anything which causes harm. We have different words to describe different things. In this way, we can tell them apart when communicating with each other.

vitiral
0 replies
1h34m

Not all violence is wrong or illegal, and not all screaming is violence.

Words are defined by people. By seeing violence as a spectrum you can see the spectrum of possible responses to violence. We can then distinguish the different forms of violence with other words, like "physical"

floor2
1 replies
1h45m

I was psychologically harmed reading this comment. Please do not post on HN again. To continue to do so is to do violence against me.

vitiral
0 replies
22m

Glad we can find agreement, but sorry this is justified violence :D

PurpleRamen
2 replies
2h11m

Not all definitions of violence are limited to physical force. Some are, including any form of power which allows abuse.

stonogo
1 replies
1h41m

All definitions of violence which extend past physical force are incorrect.

PurpleRamen
0 replies
57m

And you are the one deciding for everyone?

_flux
1 replies
1h55m

Extending words in one's public vocabulary to include things one doesn't like is a form of misleading, and thus lying, and thus violence.

vitiral
0 replies
23m

Most deep discussions require some amount of discussing your terms. A surprising amount of insight can be gathered by playing with and altering previous assumptions of a word's meaning.

For instance, by seeing violence as a spectrum you can see that while lying to the Nazi about the Jewish person in your attic is "committing violence" against said Nazi, you can also recognize that the lie is quite obviously justified violence -- and there is a spectrum of justified violence in that case.

When you lie to someone you damage their ability to see reality as it is, especially the reality of yourself (your thoughts, motivations, etc). Its not as severe as a punch to the face (in most cases at least) but it still causes harm.

bryanrasmussen
0 replies
2h14m

counterpoint - no it's not.

At least if you are making statements going against the general understanding of the society you're in then make a reference to the ideas or theories that prompt you to make these statements.

Note: many forms of theft obviously involve violence.

zug_zug
6 replies
2h7m

Feels low to me too. I think the distinction between "violent" is completely irrelevant. I think taking money from people does just as much harm as physically injuring them -- many people would rather have several bones broken than lose their pension.

The benefit is the deterrent. It's especially important for wealthy people who we may wonder if they greased wheels behind the scenes.

If you want somebody to cry about, cry about a man doing a life sentence for marijuana possession, not sbf. [1]

1 - https://eji.org/news/life-sentence-for-marijuana-possession-...

CraigJPerry
1 replies
1h47m

> The benefit is the deterrent

That’s utterly useless. There is simply no way any sociopath gives one iota about it.

tsimionescu
0 replies
26m

On the contrary, sociopaths typically only care about the deterrent.

tshaddox
0 replies
2h3m

I think it's generally appropriate to group violence, coercion, and fraud together in these discussions.

dijit
0 replies
1h48m

FWIW people have a viceral reaction to extremes of violence that they can comprehend.

When you consider that a 1% unemployment rate increase generally correlates to ~5,000 deaths then you can consider gross financial negligence to have an actual tangible human mortality cost.

We just don't, because it's too indirect and your laywer would argue confounding factors until you are all dead; but don't be mistaken: financial crimes do cost lives.

batch12
0 replies
2h2m

I think it's okay to consider both to be too long.

FabHK
0 replies
1h40m

I think the distinction between "violent" is completely irrelevant.

In particular since several people with crypto losses committed suicide, or worse, murder-suicide (killing their family and kids first).

koolba
2 replies
2h25m

There had to be some scale or additive nature though.

If an otherwise peaceful person is committing fraud on a scale 1000 times larger than the next guy, wouldn’t it at least scale up logarithmically?

koolba
0 replies
1h16m

Wow that’s really fascinating!

abvdasker
2 replies
1h56m

If someone isn't a violent threat to society, there isn't much social benefit to keeping folks locked up longer then 20-ish years.

This unfortunately widely held belief is measurably wrong and reeks of all kinds of biases. White collar criminals are one of the categories most likely to reoffend. Recidivism is much higher in white collar criminals precisely due to the leniency they often experience and the powerful financial motives associated with these types of crimes.

For violent crime 38.9% of convicts were arrested for new crime within 3 years of release. White collar crime on the other hand had a 58.8% 3-year recidivism rate.

White collar crime poses systemic risks which violent crime doesn't to the same extent. It undermines confidence in institutions by creating corruption and waste, enriching few at the expense of many. When it becomes normalized and widespread this kind of crime can destroy a country's economic and political systems.

https://medcraveonline.com/FRCIJ/FRCIJ-02-00039.pdf

bombcar
0 replies
1h38m

In analyzing recidivism of violent criminals, the criteria used were any prisoner with two or fewer prior arrests, who had been convicted of rape, homicide, assault, other sexual abuse, or other violent crime.

In examining at white collar criminals, the criteria used were any prisoner with two or fewer prior arrests, who had been convicted of larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, or other property crime (which included types of fraud, embezzlement, etc.).

I wonder if you removed the "two or fewer" if you'd get a different result.

Teever
0 replies
1h33m

I very much agree with your last paragraph. I would go so far as to say that white collar crime is worse than violent crimes because it is the pernicious ability of white collar crime to perpetuate the environment that it flourishes that can lead to the social decay that you're talking about which ultimately causes violent crime.

Another aspect of white collar crime vs violent crime is that there's no real legal concept of self defense against white collar criminals while in most places there's varying degrees of force you can use in response to a violent crime being committed against you or a stranger. With white collar crime a psychopath wearing a corporation can act with impunity and ruin your livelihood in all kinds of ways and there's nothing you can do about it.

tithe
0 replies
2h22m

In this case, could he be considered a violent economic threat to society? His defense did try to argue that he was not a "ruthless financial serial killer".

renegade-otter
0 replies
2h7m

"But financial cons are VICTIMLESS CRIMES! Give the guy a slap on the wrist and let him clean someone else's life's savings again! They may or may not kill themselves. VICTIMLESS!"

pie420
0 replies
2h11m

The main purpose of imprisoning white-collar crime is to act as a deterrent. If the upside for a financial crime is billions of dollars, and the potential risk is 25 years in prison, lots of people will be willing to take that risk, especially if 25 years actually means 17ish with good behavior.

If the punishment is life in prison with no chance of parole, it'll act as more of a deterrent.

Punishment lengths don't act as a deterrent to petty and violent crime, because the people commiting those crimes are not intelligent or are crimes of passion. Systematic fraud like this is slow, calculated and methodical.

hiddencost
0 replies
1h58m

Every $10 million in financial crime should be punished as severely as murder. It is equivalent in terms of the harms caused.

Vicinity9635
0 replies
14m

Not all threats are violent.

PurpleRamen
0 replies
2h14m

Is a silent threat so much better? I mean, how high is the chance for him to repeat the same shit again after some years?

AtlasBarfed
0 replies
1h43m

It is ridiculous that finance owns such an outsized position in our economy, with the wizards of finance hailed for their key role in the efficient performance of the economy rewarded to the tune of megabillionaires...

and people will say with a straight face that defrauding large numbers of people of their money might not have numerous health / fatal consequences: anxiety, stress, divorce, loss of benefits, working longer past retirement.

It's like saying Mafia bosses or Hitler or Stalin weren't violent and dangerous because they ordered the deaths of millions with a stroke of a pen.

chongli
24 replies
2h26m

Low? That's high! He didn't kill anyone. A sentence of 25 years completely destroys his life. He's been made an example of.

n2d4
11 replies
2h23m

Maybe he didn't kill anyone directly, but I can assure you that plenty of people committed suicide solely as a consequence of his actions

floor2
6 replies
2h14m

Maybe don't send your money to an unregulated startup in the Bahamas to gamble on cryptocurrencies if losing that money is going to cause you to commit suicide?

The "victims" knew they were intentionally avoiding government oversight of securities law, banking regulators, etc. When they lost money we should have collectively shrugged our shoulders and said that's the risk they chose to take.

pcthrowaway
1 replies
2h1m

It sounds callous, but if accept the suggestion that he's responsible for their deaths, how can we then excuse people working in the casinos or other gambling ventures that surely lead to the deaths of many.

Or would folks here suggest the numerous HN contributors who have worked in gambling tech are deserving of life in prison as well?

Kwpolska
0 replies
1h40m

Prosecuting individual contributors to gambling is too far, but prosecuting C-level execs of gambling companies is correct to me.

infamouscow
0 replies
2h4m

Is there any limiting principle to your remarkably stupid* rationale where everyone assumes all risk of their decisions implicitly and explicitly?

*: yes stupid, not an ad hominem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww47bR86wSc

baggy_trough
0 replies
2h4m

Also, don't run such a startup if you want to avoid 25 years in prison.

Larrikin
0 replies
2h3m

Maybe that girl shouldn't have worn that skirt, maybe that black guy shouldn't have been in that town after sunset, maybe that guy shouldn't have had a boyfriend.

There was a trial and now a sentencing, your argument according to law is wrong.

Arthur_ODC
0 replies
50m

This is the most reasonable take I've seen about this.

thefaux
2 replies
2h5m

For me, SBF's fraud is a comorbidity but not likely the underlying cause of the suicides. By similar logic, should we imprison all tobacco executives?

Personally, I'm glad SBF is being held accountable but this sentence seems very harsh, especially given that I expect all of his coconspirators will mostly be let off the hook.

q3k
0 replies
2h4m

By similar logic, should we imprison all tobacco executives?

If it was for me to decide - yes, absolutely.

n2d4
0 replies
1h59m

By similar logic, should we imprison all tobacco executives?

If they committed crimes to sell tobacco (which, to my knowledge, is true for at least some of them), absolutely, yes.

kosievdmerwe
0 replies
2h21m

One of the victims at the sentencing mentioned that there were at least 3 suicides.

crispyambulance
5 replies
2h17m

  > A sentence of 25 years completely destroys his life.
No, it does not "destroy his life". He will be in his early/mid-50's when gets out. Someone with his privilege, education and resources should have known better. It's hard to feel sympathy. I expect that sufficient punishment in cases like this will serve as a deterrent for others like SBF who would do the same.

Hopefully he is ALSO restricted, for life, from ever working in finance again.

tyingq
2 replies
2h10m

Hopefully he is ALSO restricted, for life, from ever working in finance again.

A felony conviction is pretty effective for heavily restricting any type of employment. The universal and cheap access to background checks means work is either places that deliberately have "hire a felon" programs or some type of self-employment, or connections with people very high up in a company. Though all those angles are also complicated if any sort of state licensing is involved.

mrguyorama
0 replies
50m

That doesn't actually seem to be the case for white collar criminals though. That guy from Wolf of Wall street is conning people to this very day, including being a hype guy for crypto scams!

gorbachev
0 replies
35m

Is it everywhere though?

He's already proven he's perfectly fine running his empires from countries with a more relaxed attitude to financial regulations.

hereonout2
0 replies
1h47m

I didn't read any sympathy in that comment, they just seem to be pointing out that 25 years is not a "low" sentence.

I would also agree that spending a 3rd of your life in prison is in effect destroying it.

commakozzi
0 replies
59m

It'll serve as a deterrent in the same way that Bernie Madoff's case did?

mnau
1 replies
1h22m

As far as I am concerned, when you steal from me, you robbed me of piece of my life. The time I spend earning that money, instead of being with friends or just pursuing a hobby or just wasting it on HN.

How many lifetimes worth of time were destroyed by his fraud.

It's definitely not high punishment.

anon291
0 replies
18m

I mean... At the end of the day everyone 'invested' their money here. The risks of high interest Bitcoin accounts were well known and elucidated by all reputable sources. If you lost money in this, I'm truly sorry, but realistically what did you expect. It wasn't even a bank (and remember if your bank loses money, no one's going to jail as long as they followed regulations).

davidwritesbugs
1 replies
2h22m

Yes. He's been made an example of. That's kind of the point: "Tempted to commit fraud on a huge scale and wreck thousands of lives? Consider what we did to this guy."

antonchekhov
0 replies
1h15m

On a much more severe scale, this is clearly the message that the Kremlin lavishly displayed of the initial treatment of the suspects involved in the Moscow Crocus Hall shootings/bombing - the results of severe torture send an unmistakable message of "Do not be tempted to try this (terrorism/attempted revolution" to the citizenry, with the implicit message that their very-short remaining lifespan will be very painful.

malermeister
0 replies
2h24m

He's completely destroyed thousands of lives through his actions.

fckgw
0 replies
1h38m

Go read the victim impact statements sometime. He destroyed lots of people's lives.

klodolph
10 replies
2h25m

25 years is a damn long time. I don’t know how that can “seem low”.

objektif
5 replies
2h21m

How much Bernie madoff got?

zarzavat
0 replies
2h13m

He was already old so he was going to die in prison whatever happened.

wut42
0 replies
2h14m

150 years.

kosievdmerwe
0 replies
2h11m

Madoff spent ~12 years in prison before he died at 82.

They gave him a 150 year sentence for a crime on par-ish with SBF's crimes, because at 70 there is little difference between 20 years and 100 years, so you may as well go for the shock value.

arrowsmith
0 replies
2h13m

150 years - of which he served 12 years before dying in prison.

aeyes
0 replies
2h15m

150 years

themaninthedark
1 replies
2h0m

I think it seems low because of the magnitude of the crime. Also because we punish more violent crimes with very harsh sentences including charging non-violent perpetrators with violent crimes(Felony Murder).

Add in the desire to be seen as doing something with sentencing inflation and your get multiple hundred year sentences.

At first I felt that 25 years was short but thinking about it, he will be ~60 when he gets out... so maybe not too short.

tempsy
0 replies
1h52m

if he does 85% and after accounting for the year and a half he’s already been in prison he’ll probably get out by 50

SoftTalker
1 replies
2h3m

Part of it is that he took it to trial. He likely could have negotiated a deal for single-digit years if he had admitted guilt and cooperated.

axus
0 replies
1h50m

I don't think we should pressure people into admitting guilt, but cooperating could be important. What more should he have done to help the people affected by his fraud?

misiti3780
6 replies
2h29m

25 years is a long time. Not saying he doesn't deserve more but his parents will probably be dead by the time he gets out, and he wont have a family.

Also, he was addicted to the internet (supposedly), he wont have access to that either.

yellow_postit
4 replies
2h27m

It seems unlikely he will serve that full time though I don’t know the specific parole eligibility constraints for these charges.

yellow_postit
0 replies
2h19m

Didn’t realize that — thanks!

SoftTalker
0 replies
2h10m

Possible that some future President would commute his sentence or grant a pardon. But unlikely.

nemo44x
0 replies
2h26m

You need to serve 85% of your sentence in federal prison. He will likely appeal for a reduction.

gizajob
0 replies
2h18m

His parents who are professors of legal ethics? His mother is getting a long-term lesson in the theories of consequentialism that she is a supporter of.

mikeryan
1 replies
2h11m

Best teacher I had in high school taught economics. First day of class his lesson was "If you're going to become a criminal follow these 10 rules".

I can't remember all the rules but the two I do: 1. Don't do anything for less than $1M. Risk isn't worth the reward. 2. Don't use a weapon. It adds years to your sentence.

It was mostly about how white-collar crime has a much safer risk/reward ratio.

colechristensen
0 replies
1h41m

How you commit crime is make it complicated enough that a prosecutor will think twice about their ability to teach a jury about how what you did worked and that any of the steps were even wrong in the first place. This is why so much financial crime goes unpunished.

whywhywhywhy
0 replies
2h15m

Shocked he’s going at all, was starting to feel like he’d get away with a slap on the wrist considering his contacts.

santoshalper
0 replies
1h56m

SBF is 32 years old. If (and it's a big if) he serves the entire 25 years, he will be 57 when he is free again. They are taking the best years of his life, and one day when he dies, having been imprisoned will be the defining event of his life - not being rich or being a CEO.

He may never marry, never have children, and will experience a very different (and far worse) life than most of the population. I have very little sympathy for the man, and I know draconian punishment is fashionable and cathartic, but I personally think this is a very suitable punishment for the very severe crime he committed.

hluska
0 replies
2h29m

It puts him in between Madoff and Holmes.

hammock
0 replies
2h21m

Shall I pull up some comps? It’s not going to be pretty

gosub100
0 replies
1h59m

I think intent matters. I don't like what he did but I am convinced he didn't think he was doing something deceitful. Whereas Madoff had a guilty conscience and precisely crafted something intended to deceive.

dandanua
0 replies
1h34m

It seems "the victimless crime" [1] became a normal line of defense when billionaires commit financial fraud. Insanity.

[1] https://youtu.be/EDMinX6t1Zk?t=420

coldpie
0 replies
2h24m

I don't know. The appropriateness of the sentence is not something I feel super strongly about one way or the other, but 25 years is objectively a very long time. Think about what a typical person does in their first 25 years. That's long enough for a person to be born, go through early childhood, go through all of their basic schooling, attend college, get a job and work for 5 years, and have a kid of their own. Or, think about a 25 year old person, and put them next to a 50 year old person. Or a 50 year old person next to a 75 year old person. It's just a very long amount of time, no matter how you slice it.

AlchemistCamp
0 replies
2h2m

He was playing fast and loose with clients' money (and ultimately made profitable investments). Elizabeth Holmes played fast and loose with medical testing and people's very lives. She got less than half this sentence.

maxclark
57 replies
2h0m

SBF is 32 years old - 25 years isn't a death sentence for him Parole is available after 1/3 of term, realistically he won't serve 100% There's still a chance for him to get something out of his life post jail

vadansky
34 replies
1h57m

It's been posted a thousand times already, there is no parole for federal sentences.

AtlasBarfed
17 replies
1h47m

There is, however, pardons.

He'll probably need to wait about 2-4 terms, but eventually the bribery ... uh ... mercy will go through.

m3kw9
16 replies
1h31m

so what would the presidents excuse be? “I feel he shouldn’t get 25, and he’s free to go”? Or “his crime wasn’t that bad”? Just wondering

eadmund
8 replies
1h22m

The pardon power is constitutionally absolute and unreviewable — the president can pardon for any reason, or none. Some people dislike that, but I personally like it, because it acts as an ultimate safety valve on the state’s ability to persecute an individual.

ceejayoz
3 replies
1h16m

The question is more "why would the President self-immolate themselves politically for someone who appears to have minimal actual political capital, especially now that they're broke?"

toast0
1 replies
1h5m

Presidents generally don't suffer much from pardoning the wrong person.

There's maybe one President that didn't get elected because of his use of the pardon. But then, Ford wasn't elected President or Vice President before he pardoned Nixon either.

Otherwise, I'm not aware of a pardon so controversial that it became a major campaign issue. And for a second term President, there's not really any downside.

rocqua
0 replies
48m

The fact that no one ever lodt an election because of a stupid pardon could equally be explained by no really stupid pardons having happened.

gorbachev
0 replies
1h4m

But they don't.

Because the pattern they usually follow is to pardon the questionable cases (personal friends, people with financial ties to the President, etc.) just before they go out of office.

bena
1 replies
1h11m

The "state" being the federal government in this case and not any individual state. The president cannot pardon state-level offenses, that is at the discretion of that state.

eadmund
0 replies
50m

Yup! I probably should have capitalised it as ‘State’ to prevent confusion.

taco_emoji
0 replies
51m

Yeah man, everybody knows this. The question is why would any president BOTHER pardoning SBF? It's an idiotic move. Literally no one is defending SBF besides his lawyers

krapp
0 replies
59m

And in exchange for this "safety valve" you get the potential for absolute and unreviewable corruption by giving one person the authority to arbitrarily override the judicial branch at will. And to do the same with the legislative branch through executive order.

If America mistrusts government so much that it wants the President to be a de facto monarch, it should just drop the pretense at being a republic and have a monarchy already. Or make the oligarchy official and elect a CEO in chief. At least then there's only one head for the CIA to put a bullet into.

justinator
4 replies
1h20m

There is a more than 0% chance we will re-elect a man that has shown that he does not mind partaking in incredibly corrupt business practices out in the open. We don't even know if they would pardon themselves for crimes and has argued that they should have full immunity to do anything, including harming his adversaries. This person would not need an excuse to do anything.

ceejayoz
2 replies
1h4m

FTX was attempting to buy influence on both sides of the aisle.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/20/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-allies...

Ryan Salame, who was the CEO of FTX’s digital markets division, donated millions of dollars to Republican political action committees and affiliated “dark money” groups with funds from FTX’s affiliated hedge fund, Alameda Research, according to the documents. Salame pleaded guilty last month to federal campaign finance and money-transmitting crimes. Caroline Ellison, who ran Alameda and once dated Bankman-Fried, also gave millions to right-leaning nonprofit groups, the documents say.

Bankman-Fried donated $10 million to a [Mitch] McConnell-linked group named One Nation in August 2022, according to the evidence filed by prosecutors. The money came directly from an Alameda Research account, prosecutors said.

There's little reason to believe any of that influence remains now that he's broke.

basil-rash
1 replies
59m

He donated far more to liberals and it’s a well known. Nobody on the right wants to see him walk free.

ceejayoz
0 replies
57m

https://globalnews.ca/news/9946242/ryan-salame-ftx-political...

The purpose of those donations, he said, was to fund political initiatives supported by Bankman-Fried. In a criminal complaint unsealed Thursday, prosecutors said they had obtained private messages in which Salame wrote that Bankman-Fried wanted to support politicians in both parties who were “pro crypto,” while working to get “anti crypto” lawmakers out of office.

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/09/07/ex-ftx-executive-...

Salame doled out more than $24 million to Republican political candidates during his time at FTX, and he was the 11th largest individual U.S. political donor in 2022 according to OpenSecrets.org. In a court filing last month, prosecutors shared “private messages” from Salame that purport to show him explaining how he was used as a straw donor to secretly funnel money from FTX and Bankman-Fried.

https://qz.com/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-republicans-democrats-m...

In one interview last November, Bankman-Fried admitted to donating roughly equal amounts to Democrats and Republicans but made sure that “all my Republican donations were dark.” He said he did this because he felt the press had a tendency to “freak” when donations were made to the Grand Old Party (GOP). At the 2022 midterm campaign funding cycle, he said he may have been the “second or third biggest” GOP donor.

Nobody on the left wants to see him walk free, either. His remaining political capital is nill. Politicians only care about rich donors if they remain rich donors.

zoklet-enjoyer
0 replies
1h9m

They don't need an excuse

notatoad
0 replies
1h17m

there doesn't need to be an excuse, and there frequently isn't. "i'm the president and i can do this" is the only excuse necessary

bsuvc
14 replies
1h31m

Not "parole" but his sentence can be reduced.

From the article:

There is no possibility of parole in federal criminal cases, but Bankman-Fried can still shave time off his 25-year sentence with good behavior.

"SBF may serve as little as 12.5 years, if he gets all of the jailhouse credit available to him," Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor, told CNN.

Federal prisoners generally can earn up to 54 days of time credit a year for good behavior, which could result in an approximately 15% reduction.

Since 2018, however, nonviolent federal inmates can reduce their sentence by as much as 50% under prison reform legislation known as the First Step Act.
thinkerswell
6 replies
1h19m

Biden can also pardon him on his way out.

red-iron-pine
5 replies
1h11m

why would Biden do that? plenty of his guys got burned by crypto, and the democratic donations are soaring due to DJT's continued proto-fascistic behavior, not via SBF or his family's efforts.

it's like saying Trump could pardon him on the way in -- and might

dragonwriter
2 replies
1h8m

it's like saying Trump could pardon him on the way in

That is more likely than a Biden pardon: Trump in his first term was big on pardoning both financial criminals and people involved in political corruption on both sides of the aisle, and SBF is both a financial criminal and someone involved in political corruption (on both sides of the aisle, even), so he is something of an ideal Trump pardon candidate.

xdavidliu
0 replies
9m

I read in the Michael Lewis book that at one point SBF was floating the idea of paying Trump not to run, and asked around for what a reasonable number would be, and figured it would be around 50 billion

philwelch
0 replies
21m

Google Marc Rich. Politicians take care of the people who take care of them.

carom
0 replies
45m

He was one of Biden's biggest donors and generally supports democrats.

Bankman-Fried’s largest donations were $27 million to his own super PAC, which supported Democratic candidates, and $6 million to a PAC that helps elect Democrats to the U.S. House. Bankman-Fried also gave the maximum $5,800 each to support dozens of candidates, mostly Democrats.

President Joe Biden’s 2020 run for president was one of the major beneficiaries of Bankman-Fried’s donations. Bankman-Fried gave $5 million to a PAC that supported President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign, $50,000 to Biden Victory Fund, and $2,800 directly to Biden for President.

1. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/12/16/ftx-...

JumpCrisscross
6 replies
1h26m

Since 2018, however, nonviolent federal inmates

I’d be in favour of amending the law to expand to cover fraud and corruption. Those are crimes that corrode social trust in a way that is analogous to challenging the state’s monopoly on violence. (And is separate from e.g. theft.)

caskstrength
3 replies
52m

Prison should be to rehabilitate (i.e. ensure that convict doesn't re-offend after they are released) as opposed to just punish and ruin people lives for their mistakes for the sake of making random commenters on internet feel good. Also, consider that keeping people in prison is very expensive and is not an optimal way for the state to spend you tax money IMO.

wpietri
0 replies
40m

Well, sort of. Prison should be a) to rehabilitate, and b) keep the unrehabilitated from doing harm. But the American prison system is not really interested in the first bit. I'd like to see a general change here, but SBF, given his entirely unrecalcitrant behavior, is among the worst people to make the argument with.

bsuvc
0 replies
17m

as opposed to just punish and ruin people lives for their mistakes for the sake of making random commenters on internet feel good

That is a strawman.

Besides (potentially) rehabilitation, prison serves to protect the populace from dangerous people who would harm others and as a deterrent to others who can see what punishment they might get if they do something illegal.

I am not claiming prison does a good job of these things, just that its goal is not to "ruin people's lives".

aidenn0
0 replies
22m

Punishment is also useful to society, in that a sentence that is considered grossly insufficient could prompt victims to resort to violence.

daveguy
1 replies
1h6m

"...the state's monopoly on violence" does not help your argument.

Otherwise, I agree.

xdavidliu
0 replies
10m

I wonder if there's a name for this rhetorical device: like casually insert shocking statements about atrocities committed by those in power. Chomsky uses it extensively.

throwaway74432
0 replies
1h31m

They address this in the article. He can serve as little as 12.5 years without any form of parole.

rootusrootus
9 replies
1h58m

Parole is available after 1/3 of term

IIRC it's 85%. Federal prison does not have parole, but they do give some credit for good behavior, up to 15%.

compiler-guy
4 replies
1h39m

This was true for a long time, but the "First Step" act, passed I think in 2021, increased the good behavior credit maximum to 50%.

Realistically then, SBF is looking at 11.5 years if he can stay out of trouble, which is relatively easy for white-collar criminals in relatively low security prisons.

Federal rules still don't have parole.

bjacobel
1 replies
1h9m

He's proven repeatedly that he's incapable of abiding by the conditions of his parole. What makes everyone in this thread so sure he'll demonstrate "good behavior"?

zer0x4d
0 replies
56m

Let's be honest here, "good behavior" is extremely easy to demonstrate in prison where everyone else is constantly getting in fights, beating up guards, etc. It's not a high bar and a person like SBF should easily be able to do that.

ufo
0 replies
1h29m

(as described in the linked article)

FireBeyond
0 replies
1h37m

The big problem for SBF I think is that he's been shown to have "no filter", or no regard for accepted norms. That could bite him even in federal prison (and he has to go to a medium security, I believe, because of the length of the sentence).

Piss off an inmate and get in an even slight altercation, lose some of your good behavior points.

12.5 years would be possible only if he scored 100% on good behavior.

setgree
2 replies
1h56m

I do not expect SBF to express remorse, be a model prisoner, etc. I expect him to royally misunderstand the rules of the game, which he routinely does in formal settings.

This is the same man who leaked his ex's diaries while she was testifying against him, which led to his bail being revoked https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/11/technology/sam-bankman-fr...

dkjaudyeqooe
1 replies
1h41m

I expect him to royally misunderstand the rules of the game

What a weird take on his behavior. His parents are law professors, he had an army of lawyers working for him at the time, yet he just didn't care and did what he felt like, knowing full well the damage it would do, because that was the whole point. There is no misunderstanding, it was just indifference.

tired_star_nrg
0 replies
1h57m

I thought that was only in Louisiana if they pass one of their new “tough on crime” laws

carabiner
5 replies
1h47m

He'll be out around 2040: https://x.com/wagieeacc/status/1768798879959400776?s=46&t=N5...

Shkreli far and away has been providing the most informed analysis of this case. He trashed the letters to the judge from SBF's parents, then Judge Kaplan went on to raise the exact points Shkreli said he would.

tempsy
2 replies
1h36m

That’s an old tweet from 2 weeks ago.

carabiner
1 replies
1h34m

And everything he said still applies.

tempsy
0 replies
57m

well no because his 2040 prediction assumed 20 years not 25

notreallyauser
0 replies
1h34m

That was based on a sentence of 20 and he got 25 -- so closer to 2044, I guess.

moralestapia
0 replies
1h41m

Shkreli is a smart guy that also went through that, so yeah, I was also happily following his commentary of this.

ddorian43
2 replies
1h57m

IIRC it was federal, where you need to do 2/3, no?

tempsy
0 replies
1h53m

85%

neaden
0 replies
1h53m

85%, not 2/3.

tempsy
0 replies
1h54m

There’s no parole in federal cases

danpalmer
0 replies
1h56m

A cushy job as a guest speaker at fancy dinners for finance people perhaps?

FireBeyond
0 replies
1h40m

25 years isn't a death sentence for him Parole is available after 1/3 of term, realistically he won't serve 100%

Federal prison does not have parole. Only good behavior options. But that could reduce it to 12.5, if he hits all behavior targets.

A_D_E_P_T
42 replies
2h8m

To put this into its proper perspective, see table 7 here:

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu...

In 2022, the average murderer in the Federal Southern District of New York (N = 58) was sentenced to a median of 231 months, which comes out to 19 years and change.

No crime of any type had an mean or median sentence higher than 25 years; most were far less than half.

So it should be really hard to argue that this is a "light" sentence. If anything, it's excessive if you consider the nature of the crime relative to the nature of murder or kidnapping.

marcinzm
18 replies
2h3m

If anything, it's excessive if you consider the nature of the crime relative to the nature of murder or kidnapping.

I suspect the resulting number of shortened lives amongst all the people who lost $8 billion worth of their money due to the fraud is more than the number caused by a single murder.

vlovich123
14 replies
1h53m

I thought the “lost” money was simply due to poor accounting and actually found.

Kaplan said he had found that FTX customers lost $8 billion, FTX's equity investors lost $1.7 billion, and that lenders to the Alameda Research hedge fund Bankman-Fried founded lost $1.3 billion.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/sam-bankman-fried-be-sent...

Clearly the real crime is bilking investors out of their money. It’s also questionable whether they even ended up losing money given the rising price of crypto in the past year. It’s also interesting how this happened:

when it filed for bankruptcy after traders pulled $6 billion from the platform in three days and rival exchange Binance abandoned a rescue deal.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/bankrupt-crypto-exchange-...

So basically the traders did a bank run and Sam ended up going to jail. It’s interesting that by contrast SVB leaders didn’t face any repercussions because they were part of the established ways of doing things even though that ended up being very costly for the government.

usefulcat
2 replies
1h14m

even though that ended up being very costly for the government.

Did it? The FDIC is funded by banks, not the government.

vlovich123
1 replies
17m

When dues and the proceeds of bank liquidations are insufficient, it can borrow from the federal government, or issue debt through the Federal Financing Bank on terms that the bank decides

It’s not fully funded by the banks & borrows from the government when it’s short. I don’t know how to account the government borrowing from itself, but I wouldn’t think it’s necessarily “free”. Yes it does get paid back, but you’re borrowing on very preferential terms that aren’t available to the public so there is as cost to the broader economy.

rootusrootus
0 replies
2m

It’s not fully funded by the banks & borrows from the government when it’s short.

While it's true that the FDIC is "backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government" it is funded by the banks and by interest from treasuries [0]. Has there ever been a case when the FDIC actually ran out of funds and had to be bailed out?

[0] https://www.fdic.gov/resources/deposit-insurance/understandi...

JumpCrisscross
2 replies
1h32m

the “lost” money was simply due to poor accounting and actually found

What? No.

The “lost” money was bet on red at the roulette wheel. While the firm was in bankruptcy, the wheel stopped spinning and came up red. That was enough to make customers whole to their original deposits. But it didn’t make up for capital gains, opportunity cost or the emotional damage caused by having your funds locked away for years.

interesting that by contrast SVB leaders didn’t face any repercussions

Totally different situations. The analogy would be PayPal freezing everyone’s accounts for 3+ years while they put all the money into Peter Thiel’s hedge fund.

beambot
1 replies
12m

I would like to recuperate the cash value of my pre-crash SVB stock, even if it's 3 years later - please & thank you. Their complete lack of risk oversight for HTM assets definitely borders on negligence...

rootusrootus
0 replies
1m

SVB stock is a different thing than an SVB deposit.

FireBeyond
1 replies
1h34m

It’s also questionable whether they even ended up losing money given the rising price of crypto in the past year.

Shkreli dealt with the "making people whole/replacing money you took": it's not okay to steal or defraud people just because you later make them whole or they don't even realize that you did.

But even moreso, to your point: Please don't conflate the rising crypto price with SBF's intent. He didn't care about that. The fact that crypto rose and may have lessened the losses is entirely orthogonal to his intent, just a "fortunate" coincidence. It could equally have cratered. The people who are being recompensed are only being recompensed in part because of something entirely outside of SBF's control and intention.

vkou
0 replies
8m

It's worse than that.

The only reason people can be made whole is because SBF was arrested for fraud, and all the funds got frozen. Given his track record, had he kept steering the firm for another year or two, he would have almost pissed away all the gains/potential gains from the crypto rally, and his customers would have found themselves in an even bigger hole.

Also, Bernie Madoff could have just taken a ten year timeout, bought and rode the S&P 500, and had made his customers whole, too, so I guess he also did nothing wrong...

rootusrootus
0 replies
6m

basically the traders did a bank run

Given that FTX is not a bank, and does not do any sort of (high regulated for a reason) fractional reserve lending ... how exactly can there be a run? All of the assets should still have been there.

klelatti
0 replies
1h31m

You can’t call it a bank run if it’s not a bank! Banks are highly regulated as they are vulnerable to this sort of issue and that’s why there is compensation. A run should not have been problematic for FTX without the fraud.

ddtaylor
0 replies
1h30m

Clearly the real crime is bilking investors out of their money. It’s also questionable whether they even ended up losing money given the rising price of crypto in the past year. It’s also interesting how this happened:

That's not how that works. Whatever purchasing power they were supposed to have that they were deprived of because of his actions results in damages - obviously equal at least to the crypto gains they would have.

SilasX
0 replies
8m

You're not replying to the question of how much money/assets -- thought to be lost -- was later found, you're just copy-pasting random details about the case.

JumpinJack_Cash
0 replies
1h4m

> So basically the traders did a bank run and Sam ended up going to jail. It’s interesting that by contrast SVB leaders didn’t face any repercussions because they were part of the established ways of doing things even though that ended up being very costly for the government.

Because Silicon Valley Bank leaders were nobodies whereas SBF became perceived as a trophy, pretty much immediately.

This is something to be mindful on. When doing self promotion some people start seeing you as an inspiration , many others as a fraud or a human trophy to be captured and paraded around.

Especially in startup communities where groupthink takes over and everybody wants to be the new cult figure of the Silicon Valley or the crypto valley or whatever. People outside that bubble (especially LE, prosecutors and judges) see right through that BS and are specifically looking with a magnifying glass everything that goes on hoping to get themselves a nice trophy on their desk, they want the heads of cult founders. Some would say rightfully so.

FabHK
0 replies
1h25m

it’s interesting that by contrast SVB leaders didn’t face any repercussions because they were part of the established ways of doing things

LOL, yeah, no. SFB also did really well established old fashioned tradCrime. It wasn't even DeCrime.

ghnws
2 replies
1h38m

Hopefully no-one bet their life on unregulated extremely risky investments.

zulban
0 replies
1h29m

That's not the point being made. However if 10,000 people lose 2000$ due to mysterious market forces, you bet this will contribute to some losing their lives.

stonogo
0 replies
1h31m

There have been at least three suicides. When this much money is being spent convincing people to buy into a bad idea, it's gonna work on someone.

Vicinity9635
4 replies
32m

"AUSA Nicolas Roos: Samuel Bankman-Fried stole $8 billion dollars. It was theft, from customers spread all over the world. It was a loss that impacted people significantly and caused damage. I want to address a few of the new victim letters"

"AUSA Roos: They lost their life savings. A man who lives in Portugal - the day before bankruptcy his daughter was born. He was marred by the ominous specter of financial instability and his daughter's future. Then there's the 23 year old from Morocco"

"AUSA Roos: He is the eldest son. He kept money on FTX not to loan it out to the defendant but for family's security. One more - a couple in the later stages of their life, late 60s, they invested with life savings. They were depressed, they had to go back to work"

https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/177336575999912795...

Dalewyn
3 replies
14m

I think the moral there is this: Don't invest money you don't want to lose.

Whether you invested in FTX or something else entirely is besides the point. If you do not want (or worse, can not afford) to lose your money, don't invest it and instead put it in a savings account with a government-backed bank you can trust.

If you complain about losing money from investing, you're investing wrong.

Vicinity9635
1 replies
13m

This wasn't a failure of investment, it was fraud.

Dalewyn
0 replies
8m

Yes, it was fraud. That is besides the point.

See from your citation, emphasis mine: "AUSA Roos: He is the eldest son. He kept money on FTX not to loan it out to the defendant but for family's security. One more - a couple in the later stages of their life, late 60s, they invested with life savings. They were depressed, they had to go back to work"

Savings should be handled appropriately as savings, not investments or "savings". SBF stole money, but there is a point to be made that people might also need better education on handling their own money.

namdnay
0 replies
4m

I’d say “Don’t gamble money you don’t want to lose”. Because let’s face it, you had to have your head pretty deep in the sand to think that crypto is anything else

petertodd
3 replies
1h57m

If anything, it's excessive if you consider the nature of the crime relative to the nature of murder or kidnapping.

The value of a single human life is not infinite. In engineering and public policy, a value like $10 million / life is typically used to make trade-offs. SBF stole funds far in excess of that.

Secondly, when funds of this scale are stolen, inevitably people wind up dying early from things like stress, and suicides.

fasthands9
1 replies
1h31m

One especially hard thing for sentencing public policy is when every crime is compared to every other crime.

It is impossible, I think, to come up with a "ranking" of crimes that everyone can agree on. And because that's impossible, anyone can always point to a sentence of someone else who received too little or too much in comparison.

I understand the desire to scale sentences by impact. But, I personally think it would be reasonable to give SBF the same exact sentence even if he had defrauded people out of twice as much or half as much money.

petertodd
0 replies
1h13m

An often forgotten aspect of sentencing is that once a criminal has done something evil, we still want there to be incentives for them to not do further evil things, as well as to co-operate with authorities.

That can play out into, say, giving both a murderer and a scammer 25 years in prison, provided that they turn themselves in and otherwise co-operate with the legal process.

I'm sure police officers would rather go into houses to arrest people knowing that whatever the suspect has done, they're going to get another 25 years in jail if they fight back. Arresting someone who has no hope at all, regardless of what they do, is simply more dangerous.

flutas
0 replies
1h40m

Secondly, when funds of this scale are stolen, inevitably people wind up dying early from things like stress, and suicides.

Yep, it was mentioned in sentencing today by one of the victims.

At least 3 have already committed suicide after the shit hit the fan.

whatscooking
1 replies
1h1m

Yea let’s let fraudsters run amuck, he damaged the lives of millions of people, fuck him

akaike
0 replies
8m

Same opinion. He should rot in jail forever

stronglikedan
0 replies
2h5m

That's only one count of murder. One life destroyed. SBF destroyed numerous lives, so it is a relatively light sentence by that data.

runako
0 replies
23m

So it should be really hard to argue that this is a "light" sentence.

The well-considered federal sentencing guidelines put the sentence for this crime at over 100 years. That is, for an anonymous defendant at remove, our legal system believes that 100+ years is a fair sentence for this set of offenses.

So another way of looking at this is because of who the specific defendant is here, the court shaved 80 years off the "fair" sentence. I would consider that a light sentence.

rgbrenner
0 replies
1h31m

FTX was one of the biggest frauds in history.. and you're showing us averages. Madoff received a 150 year sentence, and that was with leniency for pleading guilty.

quatrefoil
0 replies
1h59m

You're comparing to medians; is this a median crime?

philwelch
0 replies
5m

Ghislane Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years.

nozzlegear
0 replies
1h56m

I found the variance in sentencing data on the last couple of pages interesting. Notably there’s no variances in murder sentencing listed there. Does anyone know why that is? Are judges/juries not allowed to set sentences outside the guidelines for murder trials?

logro
0 replies
1h54m

There is nothing "median" or "average" about this crime. This is one of the biggest financial frauds in U.S. history.

gjsman-1000
0 replies
2h5m

I'm not convinced by that; I think theft in many ways deserves a greater penalty.

Imagine if I rob 10,000 people of $2,000. Some people won't feel it. Others will be suicidal and may even commit suicide partially from hopelessness. There also could have ramifications that last years into the future, and cascade. (Can't buy new car to replace old car, don't have enough money now. Old car broke, missed work, got fired, found new job elsewhere that pays less...)

edgyquant
0 replies
24m

All this proves is that murderers get off way too easy.

dns_snek
0 replies
1h6m

Statistical value of a human life in the US is around $7.5 million. Stealing $10 billion is therefore statistically equivalent to killing 1300 people, or pretty close to half of 9/11. That seems like a pretty light sentence to me.

FireBeyond
0 replies
2h1m

If anything, it's excessive if you consider the nature of the crime relative to the nature of murder or kidnapping.

It also affected tens of thousands of people more than a murder or kidnapping.

4ndrewl
0 replies
31m

Wasn't perjury and witness tampering significant here though? Messing with the actual justice system should end with heavy punishment I guess.

bodiekane
31 replies
2h3m

It's wild that 99% of the "point" of crypto and a Bahamas-based exchange was to avoid all the laws around securities trading, banking, money transferring (anti-money laundering, taxes, etc), etc and yet when things go south, people still expect the government to come in and enforce a tiny subset of the financial laws they've otherwise been operating outside of.

This is a weird form of "privatize the profits, socialize the losses" but with the benefactors being the people intentionally avoiding all the financial laws.

sneak
4 replies
1h59m

Yeah, I agree. This should fall under “caveat emptor”. Everyone using unregulated exchanges (which IMO should be an option for everyone) should recognize that they are subject to additional risks (and benefits).

The government shouldn’t outlaw free climbing either.

It’s your own fault if you treat a bunch of foolish kids with millions of dollars the same way you would an onshore FDIC-insured regulated bank.

Canada Bill Jones would like a word.

i1856511
0 replies
1h49m

I agree with you as well, but this is a major example of how, despite this ideal, something like this can sweep up so many people that would otherwise never interact with a system like this. People who don't know who SBF is, never heard of Hacker News, who don't understand crypto, getting convinced to put money into this by, say, a younger relative. It is a real side-effect of this thing existing on this scale on a planet populated by humans.

People don't go mass free-climbing because it isn't something you do by accident. The danger is obvious. But this danger is abstract, and the ease of entering this type of system can happen with just a few clicks from the comfort of your home. And getting dollar signs in your eyes is a very psychologically influential pull.

creaturemachine
0 replies
55m

Climbing pedant checking in. I think the type of climbing you're referring to is free-solo, that is climbing alone with no partner or protection from falling. "Free climbing" is climbing using only hands and feet for upward progression but typically involves the use of protection (gear, ropes, and a partner) to save you in the event of a fall. It's called "free" because the climber does not use metal tools, hooks, pitons, or bolts for upward progression like in aid, ice, or alpine climbing.

bronson
0 replies
1h43m

Free climbing in populated areas is outlawed (and should be). Try climbing your nearest skyscraper and see how it goes.

Similarly, torching your money on some random shitcoin isn't outlawed. But when they enter populated areas, renaming stadiums and hiring celebrities to try to trick the masses, the rules change.

GCA10
0 replies
1h39m

It's worth noting that a huge amount of the government's case involved evidence that SBF and team were buying lavish oceanfront condos, paying superstar athletes for weird TV commercials, etc.

This was actually a tiny slice of the overall financial mischief at FTX. But it told well in front of a jury. And it reinforced a big point that prosecutors keep wanting to make, as publicly as possible. "Don't take the customers' money to live large on your thefts!" That's a message that they want countless bookkeepers, financial planners, etc. to hear, again and again.

So, yes, they wanted to make an example out of SBF. The intricacies of FTX's full financial gyrations were sometimes too complicated to put in front of a jury. But the clueless or duped crypto-trading clients got a free bailout anyway. It came on the back of a prosecution that was largely intended to be a public slapdown of a guy committing lifestyle offenses with other people's money.

rgbrenner
3 replies
1h47m

If you conduct criminal activity while employed, you conducted criminal activity. You can't just walk into work at 8am, kill someone at 9am, and go home at 5. You still did the crime, and can be prosecuted for it.

So let me rephrase your question: can a US citizen file some papers internationally that would permit them to conduct criminal activities in the US against other US citizens.

The answer should not be surprising.

hn_throwaway_99
2 replies
1h41m

That's not at all how I interpreted the comment you are responding to.

That is, FTX's customers knew, or most definitely should have known, that FTX (and crypto at large - that is essentially the primary selling point of crypto) was "outside the regulatory financial framework". Yet when things blew up and all these FTX customers lost all their money, there was very little reflection of "Hey, perhaps these financial regulations really do have some purpose.", it was more "I want the government to now enforce the banking laws that I was essentially trying to evade in the first place."

rgbrenner
1 replies
1h38m

SBF wasn't convicted for violating financial regulations (such as maintaining capital liquidity, reporting transactions or meeting KYC requirements). He was convicted of fraud and conspiracy.

hn_throwaway_99
0 replies
27m

Yes, I know, but the type of fraud and conspiracy SBF committed is much easier when you're at a financial institution that essentially has no regulators or auditors keeping tabs on thing.

Just read some of the reports John Ray III, the current "cleanup" FTX CEO, wrote shortly after he was brought in. It was a total clown show, with little to no documentation for things like huge multimillion loans to FTX principals. It's a lot easier to steal money when there is no standardized, auditable paper trail to begin with.

loeg
3 replies
1h49m

Can you elaborate on how FTX's losses were socialized here?

dragontamer
2 replies
1h45m

Its the US Government courts who are handling FTX's bankruptcy. So at a minimum, they are expecting the USA Government to figure out how to split the money / clawback what they can and untangle the mess of the balance sheets (rumor has it: a completely non-existent set of documentation in the case of FTX).

loeg
1 replies
33m

That's not really what socializing losses usually means. This isn't an FDIC bailout, for example.

dragontamer
0 replies
21m

How is FDIC "bailout" socializing losses?

SIVB stock collapsed and all the investors into SIVB were wiped out. US Government stepped in and started allocating the remaining assets, prioritizing the customers and hurting the bondholders and shareholders.

IE: The shareholders / bondholders of SIVB were basically wiped out. The losses were privatized so to speak, isolated to the investor class.

robswc
2 replies
1h46m

Those people are mostly hypocrites.

Your complaint would be solved with less gray area.

Businesses outside of the US should be able to do business with US citizens _without_ the consent of the US government. This comes with the caveat that if you, the customer, reject the "protection" of the US government, you are completely and totally SOL if things go south.

ebiester
0 replies
1h41m

The hard part is that US citizens may not know they are doing business outside the jurisdiction of the US government. Are you rejecting the protection of the US government if the company is doing its best to obscure that fact and the associated risks? How about if they are advertising in the US? On the superbowl?

bombcar
0 replies
1h43m

Time and time again this just results in people complaining to the government to "fix" it once their get rich quick scheme blows up in their face.

aftbit
2 replies
1h37m

Let me just provide a counter-point. As an early crypto advocate, and someone who has lost thousands of USD to hackers and scammers, I did not ever expect the government to bail me out. As you said, the whole point of crypto was to free ourselves from these regulations, which means high risk high reward investments, and the opportunity to create truly innovative products. High risk means sometimes you lose your money, even to illegal and unethical actions.

The real tragedy is that NFTs turned into digital trading cards and DAOs turned into pump and dump scams. The really interesting use cases will appear once the USDT Tether books are exposed and Bitcoin price plummets. Imagine NFTs attached to shipping containers tracking custody throughout a series of mutually distrusting last mile carriers. Or DAOs that allow people to organize for collective action with radically transparent finances to prevent corruption and grift.

Of course I'm sure this will not go over well here on HN, where everyone reflexively hates crypto and loves government regulation. It's a bit ironic for a forum where the majority of members are engaged in the business of "disrupting" one or another traditional industry. Of course the industry of finance is too sacrosanct to risk such disruption. Why should Uber have to pay for taxi medallions though?

ecommerceguy
1 replies
1h14m

As a former eth miner and now crypto un-enthusiast, i was attracted to the idea of contract disruption and value transfers utilizing blockchain but ever since the entire industry has become scams, wall street and *bros, yeah I'd love to see it all crash and burn. Exposing tether would be a great start.

FabHK
0 replies
1h1m

Same here, former enthusiast now appalled by it.

GP: > HN, where everyone reflexively hates crypto

Yeah, no, the hate of crypto stems from a fairly well grounded understanding of the technology here. BTW, the good folks at FT Alphaville also mostly hate crypto - there, it stems from a good understanding of finance. Basically, everyone that understands the tech/finance intersection reasonably well hates crypto, with one important caveat best expressed by Upton Sinclair nearly a century ago:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

seanmcdirmid
1 replies
1h54m

people still expect the government to come in and enforce a tiny subset of the financial laws they've otherwise been operating outside of.

I don't see how people ever expected the government not to enforce these financial laws on electronic currencies.

dfxm12
0 replies
1h36m

I agree, the average citizen would have expectation that the government would enforce these laws. However, I do think OP can be more clear that when they say "people" here, they don't mean your average citizen, but proponents of crypto who would agree that 99% of the "point" of crypto and a Bahamas-based exchange was to avoid all the laws.

HPsquared
1 replies
1h44m

I'm not aware if any cryptobros advocating to decriminalize fraud. Fraud is always going to be illegal. This isn't some regulatory compliance thing.

Munksgaard
0 replies
1h38m

I've definitely heard variants of "the market will decide what is fraud" from people that I know in real life.

yieldcrv
0 replies
1h47m

Using crypto with or as a custodian never had that standard you are referring to.

Fascinating level of cognitive dissonance that is prevalant in this thread. It’s a mixture of conflating competing ideas, and strawman arguments to discredit crypto users.

Custodians are subject to liability based on their own citizenship, the citizenship of their clients, and the location of the infrastructure being used, it doesn't matter what type of asset is involved.

Dang, we should really flag these non sequitur posts on every crypto thread that appears on HN, we’re almost 20 years in and the discussion level is a large aberration lower compared to other tech topics on HN and other dev and enthusiast crypto forums still, when it should be the opposite. flagging practically everything would promote more substantive discussions by making that point to otherwise well adjusted people, and surfacing the things that work well within crypto to people that otherwise aren’t exposed to that.

skybrian
0 replies
1h36m

Murder is still murder even if it’s a dispute between two criminals. I suppose the same is true of fraud. Law enforcement is always a socialized cost.

Though, there are fines. Apparently, FTX might owe $9 billion in fines and penalties and $10 billion other government litigation [1]? The creditors might not get much at all.

I don’t know what the users of a cryptocurrency exchange expect. I think there’s always some chance of a “rug-pull?”

[1] https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/US-v-...

robertlagrant
0 replies
1h50m

This is a weird form of "privatize the profits, socialize the losses" but with the benefactors being the people intentionally avoiding all the financial laws.

No, it's, as usual, the government choosing to do the wrong thing with your tax money, because it will be bad publicity not to, because votes, because power.

madeofpalk
0 replies
1h25m

I'm sure the people running the Bahamas-based exchanges (such as Sam) wouldn't like this law to be enforced.

ddorian43
0 replies
1h53m

The government must preserve the population even against themselfes.

Depending how south things go, you can get assasinated inside an embassy or killed in plain day light with the whole world knowing who did it.

adrianmonk
0 replies
1h33m

That ship sailed years and years ago. You can buy Bitcoin ETFs from traditional investment companies (like Fidelity and BlackRock), and those companies aren't in it for the freedom.

More to the point, the IRS has been collecting taxes on Bitcoin earnings since around 2014[1]. Since the government is taxing you, it's fair to ask the government to protect you.

---

[1] https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/freq...

JumpinJack_Cash
0 replies
1h42m

> This is a weird form of "privatize the profits, socialize the losses" but with the benefactors being the people intentionally avoiding all the financial laws.

It was SBF who put it in the hands of the US by declaring bankruptcy in essentially 3 days instead of playing the long wait game

Also SBF who put it in the hands of the US by staying in the Bahamas and essentially waiting to be arrested (and immediately extradicted to the US) instead of fleeing to Cuba or Colombia or South America. 25ft Inflatable ribs can make that route.

During the first day of crisis he could have gone to Russia too by private plane and pull a Snowden

GenerWork
0 replies
1h49m

I agree 100%. You want to operate outside the law? That's fine with me, but you gotta accept the risks. However, that means you have to be extra-judicious about who you operate with. I've found it funny to hear crypto proponents scream about how the government needs to prosecute him yet they'll turn right back around and demand that the government needs to have less regulation and taxation of crypto.

w0z_
28 replies
2h31m

The US prison sentence lengths are insane.

arrowsmith
15 replies
2h29m

You think so? 25 years seems quite reasonable to me. He stole billions of dollars.

w0z_
8 replies
2h25m

Not to undermine what he did. The US prison system just seems very unproductive, put him in a factory for 20 of those years.

emanuele232
3 replies
2h16m

forced work for who breaks the law? you risk to fall in the "slavery with extra steps" situation

stonogo
1 replies
2h14m

Slavery as a punishment for crime is explicitly authorized in the United States Constitution.

lesuorac
0 replies
2h2m

To piggy-back on this, not only is it explicitly authorized it's often expected.

Failure to voluntarily participate in a work-program is grounds for solitary confinement (which entails more penalties than just being by yourself).

jobs_throwaway
0 replies
2h4m

federal prisons already require prisoners to work. We DO have slavery with extra steps

user90131313
1 replies
2h7m

no, private prisons are productive?

rootusrootus
0 replies
1h12m

Private prisons account for 8% of the total prison population.

themaninthedark
0 replies
2h21m

And then we will have people complaining about slavery...they already say that prison jobs pay below minimum wage so they are slavery.

pavel_lishin
0 replies
2h19m

I don't like the incentives that creates. Private prisons and the existing prison labor system are bad enough.

drexlspivey
5 replies
2h15m

The victims are going to get paid back (in 2022 crypto prices) due to the appreciation of FTX’s assets (crypto and Anthropic shares). So if someone lost a bitcoin when FTX collapsed (BTC was at $18k at the time) they will get more than $18k but not $70k which is today’s price.

aeyes
3 replies
2h13m

If I had 1 Bitcoin in an FTX wallet, I'd like to have 1 Bitcoin back. Not whatever the value of Bitcoins is in Dollars.

jedberg
2 replies
1h53m

If you wanted those kinds of banking protections, then you should have used a currency system that has those protections. Bitcoin is "easy" because it is unregulated, but the flip side of that is that you the consumer get no protection, and you shouldn't expect any.

rootusrootus
1 replies
1h10m

This is pretty twisted. FTX can claim it made customers whole by benefiting from exactly the speculative gains that it prevented its customers from getting.

jedberg
0 replies
36m

It’s certainly immoral but it’s the risk you take investing in an unregulated market. There are regulations to prevent exactly this when you invest in stocks or put your US dollars into a bank account.

FireBeyond
0 replies
1h32m

That has zero to do with SBF's intention and should not be in any way a defense against the wrong perpetrated against them.

It could easily have crashed.

That it went in a direction that helps make his victims more whole is entirely happenstance and SBF should get ZERO credit or recognition for this aspect of restitution.

nixgeek
6 replies
2h26m

Insanely low? Insanely high?

SBF hasn’t really accepted responsibility or apologized through the trial, and didn’t at sentencing either.

Judge Kaplan seems to have taken a balanced view — far from the statutory maximum, less than the U.S. wanted, more than the defense wanted.

There will of course be appeals — SBF has already indicated he will file one.

There’s good coverage of what took place at sentencing today here — https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/177334004374401064...

Also of note is since this is a federal conviction there is no parole in that system, and so unless SBF is successful in his appeal, he will spend at least 255 months in prison, that’s a 15% reduction versus the total sentence in return for good behavior while serving his sentence.

klodolph
5 replies
2h20m

High, generally. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and US sentences are an outlier in terms of how long they are (they’re not the longest, but the whole picture is kind of shocking).

yau8edq12i
0 replies
1h43m

I get your point, the claim was incorrect. But if you're only beaten by Salvador, Cuba, Rwanda, Turkmenistan, and American Samoa... Well, maybe the overall point stands: "Highest in the world" is hyperbole, that much is true, but the USA has an insanely high rate of incarceration, higher than most countries, and definitely higher than all "developed" countries. As a point of comparison, the next OECD member on that list is Turkey, which has about 34% fewer prisoners per 100k people than the USA.

dragonwriter
0 replies
1h12m

Assuming the accuracy of that source on the numbers, its actually the 5th.

Yes, the United States is the sixth listed, but the 5th listed is part of the United States, not a separate country. (So are several others, but I don't think Guam or the US Virgin Islands are big enough that they move the US overall rating down far enough to matter.)

rootusrootus
0 replies
1h17m

A difference in philosophy on prison sentence length. The higher incarceration rate is almost 100% explained by sentences that are on average roughly twice what the UK imposes (as one example).

lesuorac
0 replies
2h5m

When you can't solve crimes you have to make the sentences really long as a deterrent.

swader999
2 replies
2h30m

Three suicides related to the theft.

zarzavat
1 replies
1h56m

People also commit suicide if the bank repossesses their home, their spouse has an affair, their surgeon makes an error, etc.

I’m not saying that SBF has no culpability, but I don’t think you should get prison time for causing someone’s suicide, or at least society doesn’t act as if it’s in any way equivalent to murder.

baobabKoodaa
0 replies
1h35m

The scale of SBF's fraud was so enormous that the money could have been used to save hundreds of lives that have now perished. So if we use a little bit of EA napkin math, we can conclude SBF's crimes were on par to hundreds of murders.

deeviant
0 replies
2h29m

How so. Do you think it's too long, too short, too ...?

BizarreByte
0 replies
1h19m

They've never made any sense to me, but neither do my country's sentence lengths. Ours seem too light, whereas the US's seem extreme.

I guess I'm really not sure what value there is to locking up someone like this for 25 years when in a sane system/society there should be far better options.

sabana
26 replies
2h29m

Quite a short sentence for the magnitude of the crime. Financial crimes like these do kill people and destroy countless lives. They deserve maximum pentalties.

ak_111
14 replies
2h24m

It is long enough to destroy his life. What matters if he gets out at 70 or 80 if he gets out at 60?

CharlesW
6 replies
2h17m

It is long enough to destroy his life.

Hardly. Milken was sentenced to 10 and served 2. SBF will serve 7, at which point he'll still be under 40.

Analemma_
2 replies
2h9m

This is not correct. Federal sentences do not have parole and can be reduced by a maximum of only 15%, meaning (if that happens) SBF will serve at least 21 years and be 53 when released.

Milken was released because Trump pardoned him, which I don't think says anything about how sentencing guidelines do or should work.

dragonwriter
0 replies
2h7m

Milken was released because Trump pardoned him,

He was released after a sentence reduction for cooperation with prosecutors against others decades before the pardon. Both the release and pardon occurred, but the latter was not the reason for the former.

CharlesW
0 replies
2h5m

Federal sentences do not have parole…

TIL, thank you! That makes me feel much better at what initially seemed like a slap on the wrist.

vkou
1 replies
2h12m

The federal system doesn't have parole, and gives a maximum of 15% off for good behaviour.

He won't be out for ~two decades.

jobs_throwaway
0 replies
2h6m

and its not even a true 15%, its less than that

dragonwriter
0 replies
2h8m

Milken got a sentence reduction for cooperation with prosecutors against others. The other big fish in FTX already cooperated against SBF, who do you expect him to roll over on?

AustinDev
3 replies
2h18m

He gets out at 51. Somewhere around there with 25 year sentence at 31 with credit for time served.

ak_111
2 replies
2h13m

how, he is 32?

dragonwriter
0 replies
2h11m

I think its probably taking the approximately 21 years you get with the sentence with maximum good conduct time reduction, and also assuming credit for time served after his bail was revoked.

MuffinFlavored
0 replies
2h9m

32 years old + 25 year sentence +/- 15% good behavior / time served / whatever = 57 years old at the oldest

objektif
2 replies
2h20m

That is a big difference. You can live a pretty good 15 or so years if you get out at 60. Considering that his parents are well off he will inherit some.

yokem55
0 replies
2h16m

He's got 11B in restitution to pay. Any inheritance he gets will be forfeited to that.

ak_111
0 replies
2h12m

Almost anyone who is deterred from committing the crime if they get 50 years will also be deterred from committing the crime if they get 25 years.

melenaboija
6 replies
2h17m

What is the goal of the punishment?

If it is to harm him and make the rest of the world satisfied with it 25 years behind bars seems enough to me, I don’t care if it is 25, 35 or 155. In five years I will have forgotten about this.

If it is stopping others, same thing, I don’t think that if someone is determined to do something similar would care about 25 or more years.

lb4r
1 replies
1h42m

I think of it like this: Many people would "happily" spend 5 years in prison for a more than probable chance to get filthy rich. That's a superset with, I imagine, significantly greater cardinality than the set of those willing to spend 25.

Obviously there is a sweet spot. For example, if you're okay with 60 years, than you're probably okay with 80. I'd imagine 20, give or take 5 years or so, is near that sweet spot, but that's just my gut feeling. Obviously statistics is key here, if there is any.

gls2ro
0 replies
45m

I think many people _say_ they will happily spend 5 years in prison but that is different than actually being faced with the actual possibility.

foogazi
1 replies
2h12m

It’s to stop him first - he won’t be running financial fraud schemes for 20-25 years

Then it’s to stop other bright minds from attempting anything like this - they’ll remember SBF. His crime has a price now: 20-25 years

sangnoir
0 replies
1h55m

It will also give the enablers of criminality pause. If the mastermind gets 20-25, they'll realize they are risking 2-5 year sentences with zero upside just for "following orders" or negligently turning a blind eye to malfeasance.

stephenitis
0 replies
2h5m

25 is a steep deterrance. Hard to know its effect since it'd hopefully deter some of the more heinous future financial crimes.

m3kw9
0 replies
1h26m

So just slap his wrist and say no no?

taminka
2 replies
2h8m

prison should fundamentally be abt rehabilitation, not whatever retribution random ppl think is “proportional”

mrguyorama
0 replies
1h23m

How long do you think it takes to rehabilitate someone so disconnected from reality and empathy as SBF?

Honestly I think that would take LONGER than 50 years...

I think 25 is on the high end of a reasonable sentence. White collar crime in the US has been a slap on the wrist (if anything!) since Enron. It's time we fix that. People need to see personal consequences for such anti-social and destructive behavior. If you are a CEO, you should be afraid of profiting from the suffering of others.

JumpCrisscross
0 replies
1h18m

prison should fundamentally be abt rehabilitation

You can’t ignore retribution and incapacitation. Focus solely on rehabilitation and people will take the law into their own hands while raging against the system when it comes to recividism.

We need to focus more on rehabilitation and restoration. But those can’t be exclusive of the other components of justice.

exe34
0 replies
2h6m

They could just fit him with a GPS bracelet and ban him from any banking other than a basic cash card.

bambax
26 replies
2h23m

I think that's about fair and reasonable. It's been said in Europe he would not have gotten more than years and it's probably true. 25 years is a really long time and even if he does only 20, still super long.

Here's a live tweeting of the sentencing hearing; some of Judge Kaplan's remarks are really interesting.

https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/177334004374401064...

tombert
23 replies
1h29m

If I broke into a person's house and stole $1000, even if I didn't directly hurt that person, I could expect to get several years in prison, basically regardless of the state. Lets say three years to be conservative on this?

Sam Bankman Fried stole billions of dollars [1], probably often around $1000 at a time from tens of thousands of people. If going with my logic, he should be getting a lot longer than 25 years, upwards of hundreds or thousands of years. Obviously, it's not a linear relationship, the crime was non-violent, first-time-offender, etc. I'm just saying that 25 years seems pretty fair to me considering the magnitude of the crime.

I am one of the victims (well, of Gemini Earn anyway), and I think if I were given the choice, I'd probably sentence him to 20-25 years.

[1] Or at least so grossly mismanaged that there's no real purpose in drawing a distinction.

lijok
11 replies
1h12m

Why do you think SBF requires 20-25 years to rehabilitate?

golergka
5 replies
1h2m

Why do you think he will ever rehabilitate?

Prison is not and shouldn't be about rehabilitation. It's society that requires to be less exposed to SBF, by 20-25 years.

lijok
4 replies
50m

He's a first-time non-violent offender. If that wasn't the case, I'd agree with you.

tonightstoast
0 replies
38m

First-time sentenced for crimes against 1000s of people.

tombert
0 replies
31m

Everyone keeps repeating "first time offender", but I think that term is kind of misleading.

If I stole exactly one empty car exactly one time, then yes, I'd be a first time offender in the sense everyone thinks it. If I stole a thousand empty cars, and only got caught after the 999th, then sure, legally I'd be a "first time offender", but I would have still committed the crime a thousand times.

This wasn't a one-time clerical error that he failed to report. This was an intentional bit of theft that kept going for years. It's really not a "first time offense", and I don't think it's fair to categorize it as such.

khazhoux
0 replies
27m

Indeed, this is the first time he stole billions. How could he have known it was wrong?

anon291
0 replies
26m

If you commit ten robberies before you're caught are you a first time offender? What vapid logic

throwup238
1 replies
1h8m

We don’t rehabilitate in this country.

rootusrootus
0 replies
31m

"Won't someone please think of the poor criminals" is definitely a tough sell in the US.

tombert
0 replies
34m

I don't even normally believe in "punishment" because I don't actually think it works. I think SBF will spend 20-25 years in prison, continuously blaming every human on earth except himself the entire time. If he thought what he was doing was wrong, he wouldn't have continued to do it for so long.

That said, I also have no reason to think that if he's not locked away, he won't just do the same or similar scam again. He hasn't shown any remorse, and he just pretends to be ignorant of all the crimes. If not put into jail, I suspect he'd just go to a country with difficult extradition laws and do some other cryptocurrency scam from there. Putting him in jail for 20 years at least avoids it for 20 years.

dilyevsky
0 replies
17m

Incarceration is not only about rehabilitation, it’s also about justice and deterrence

Red_Leaves_Flyy
0 replies
21m

You think he can be rehabilitated? By American prisons? Seriously? Look around; that didn’t happen.

liendolucas
4 replies
1h0m

Sam Bankman Fried stole billions of dollars [1], probably often around $1000 at a time from tens of thousands of people. If going with my logic, he should be getting a lot longer than 25 years, upwards of hundreds or thousands of years.

Apparently that logic applied to Bernie Madoff. He got 150 years. How are these cases so similar and yet got radically different sentences?

chollida1
1 replies
21m

How are these cases so similar and yet got radically different sentences?

Partially in that SBF's victims will get "100%" back, based on the USD value of their holdings at the time.

Madoff victims, especially the wealthily got a large haircut on their holdings and clawbacks on money they had taken out as far as 5 years back from sentencing.

Also Maddoff's fraud went on for 15+ years, SBF's was maybe a year to 18 months at the most?

These two cases are so widely different that you can't really compare them except at a superficial level, ie they were both fraud, and that's about where the similarities end.

liendolucas
0 replies
7m

These two cases are so widely different that you can't really compare them except at a superficial level, ie they were both fraud, and that's about where the similarities end.

I have to disagree on that. Mostly because the order of magnitude of both scams is the same (billions) and both destroyed how many lives?

And sure, maybe FTX victims will get 100% back, but when? How long until you see that money back?

tombert
0 replies
26m

Even more, Madoff actually turned himself in. I doubt he was "remorseful", mostly just realizing how insolvent he was, but it demonstrates at least some accountability on his end.

adgjlsfhk1
0 replies
5m

a lot of the answer is that Madoff wasn't trying for 25 years. When you're 71, they're both a life sentence.

shuckles
1 replies
1h20m

If I broke into a person's house and stole $1000, even if I didn't directly hurt that person, I could expect to get several years in prison

Almost definitely not, especially if it was your first crime. It’s pretty unlikely you’d even be caught.

Severity of the punishment has extremely diminishing returns on discouraging future crimes. The only other impetus for a longer sentence is if you think the defendant is likely to commit more crimes when released. Besides that, longer sentences are hard to justify.

tombert
0 replies
28m

I do think that Sam Bankman Fried will commit more fraud the second he is able to. He hasn't shown any remorse, and he just blames everyone else for this mess even when there's dead-to-rights evidence.

thsksbd
0 replies
23m

"If I broke into a person's house and stole"

The owners, the police, the prosecutor and the jury would be far more interested in the breaking and entry charge than the $1000.

In fact, in every state of the Union, if you're facing me whilst committing the act of trespassing inside my home, I can legally punch a hole through your torso with a 9mm.

retrac
0 replies
1h1m

Your logic is strange. With robbery, the primary crime is the violence (or para-violent threat), and not the theft. This is easy to demonstrate: the punishment for breaking into someone's home in many jurisdictions is essentially the same, even if you steal nothing.

golergka
0 replies
1h4m

Breaking and entering into someone's house and stealing their cash is very different from having an obligation to pay them out cash and not fulfilling it. While it may be the same amount of money, it's a radically different relationship between parties.

Red_Leaves_Flyy
0 replies
28m

You’ve identified one of the primary failures of the courts. As the number of victims raises the punishment for each victim decreases in our judicial system. Victim count is an aggravating factor and should be a multiple when calculating punishment. Instead we have a system that pretends to grant justice but is an actuality a tool of injustice and repression wielded by people whose entire perspective can be effectively reduced to might makes right. Despite our toys and complicated rhetoric we’re still just violent animals holding those with the least autonomy the most accountable and those with the most autonomy can escape the consequences of their violence indefinitely. A mass revolt or protest of the judicial system in the next generation would not surprise me in the least.

TrackerFF
1 replies
1h59m

Tbh, a bunch of American (high profile) lawyers had estimated that he'd only get a couple of years, max, as he had no prior convictions - and the nature of the case.

EasyMark
0 replies
1h20m

I think they must be unfamiliar with the federal judicial system which is almost always on the conservative side of sentencing unless there were some extremely extenuating circumstances. There were none here, this was straight up greed and grift on Sam's part.

publius_0xf3
21 replies
57m

It's funny. I lost tens of thousands of dollars thanks to this individual, yet his sentence brings me no joy or arouses any emotion at all. I'm utterly indifferent to his fate for some reason and I don't know why. Yet if he had been a mugger who stole a much smaller amount of money from me on the street, I think I would've been far more vengeful.

Should I feel vindictive? Or is it healthy to forget about it and move on? I'm not sure.

ragazzina
3 replies
41m

It is funny - especially when you consider a mugger on the street would need your money much more than SBF ever would.

blululu
1 replies
18m

Not really. The use of a gun/knife/lethal force implies a much different risk profile (you could easily die or be crippled for life). It's not about the money - it's about the violence.

xmprt
0 replies
10m

That's a fair point. With FTX you might feel some sense of responsibility because you voluntarily gave up your money (whether it was fraud by deception or not). But a mugger is infringing on your freedom to walk around at night.

zarathustreal
0 replies
12m

Money _should be_ the least of the concerns of a mugger on the street. Subjecting yourself to lawlessness exposes you to real danger and kinda detracts from your ability to participate in commerce.

Granted, I haven’t seen any scientific evidence to suggest that a lack of money causes a lack of ability to reason (and thus a lack of responsibility for one’s own actions) but my own anecdotal experience does suggest it

__loam
3 replies
24m

I didn't lose a penny and I'm giddy about it. Justice has been done.

freedomben
2 replies
20m

I didn't lose a penny and I'm giddy about it. Justice has been done.

How can you be giddy about a human being locked in a cage for 25 years? Would you be giddy if he were being flogged, or hanged? As long as there has been recording, flogging and hangings were common punishments and usually defended as "justice has been done." Incarceration really isn't far from medieval punishments.

I'm by no means suggesting that nothing should be done, and maybe 25 years in prison is a just sentence (that's debatable, but for moving forward let's assume it is), but it still leaves me with a sick feeling. I just can't relate whatsoever with feeling "giddy" over it.

rootusrootus
0 replies
11m

Many people see justice served as a win for society, a reason to be hopeful that the future will be better. One life out of billions is valuable only to that person and their immediately family, it would be odd to feel sick over someone else getting punished for defrauding so many others of their life savings.

__loam
0 replies
12m

How can you be giddy about a human being locked in a cage for 25 years?

Said human is responsible for the financial ruin of thousands of people. It's entirely likely that some small portion of those people committed suicide.

White collar criminals, especially those as pedigreed as SBF, are rarely held accountable for their actions. The maximum sentence was 110 years so he got off pretty lightly here and it's entirely possible he serves less than 25 years for good behavior.

So yeah, I'm excited to see an at least somewhat positive outcome here. A criminal was accountable for their actions.

anonu
2 replies
20m

Are you expecting to recover any money from this? I understood everyone would be made whole at some point.

rootusrootus
1 replies
17m

I understood everyone would be made whole at some point

That is only true if you define 'made whole' as giving back each customer the amount of money denominated in USD that they deposited with FTX. That is super convenient for FTX, which has benefited from the spike in BTC value, but not for the customer. To really be made whole, they would need to get back exactly what they deposited. 1 BTC in? 1 BTC out.

philipov
0 replies
12m

When you invest in monopoly money where the main feature is eliminating institutional protections, don't be surprised that institutions refuse to protect the value you pretend it has. The US government has no obligation to recognize BTC as a measure of fungible value.

bdcravens
1 replies
53m

Perhaps previous exit scams in the crypto space dulled your senses?

If anything, I feel like you should share your story to protect others, especially during times when crypto is peaking (like now) and others are tempted to jump in: use exchanges to buy/sell and get out, store your keys on a cold storage device, and transfer out fiat ASAP.

CivBase
0 replies
38m

Surely the better takeaway is to just not bet on crypto in general? It's supposed to act like a currency, not a stock. So long as people keep feeding into these pump-and-dump schemes they'll keep happening.

Money doesn't come from nowhere. For every dollar you make on crypto, somone loses a dollar. All these BS coins do is shuffle wealth from the unlucky gamblers to the lucky ones. Go spend your money at a casino instead.

skaag
0 replies
19m

I'm an indirect victim via BlockFi (headed by Zach Prince), which did business with FTX and lost my money as a result. I held 33 ETH in a BlockFi BIA account, and only recently got 4 ETH back. I don't know if I will ever recover the rest of my funds.

I don't know what your financial situation is but I'm not rich, and it is extremely painful to look at ETH trading at above $3000 and realizing my rainy day fund has been stolen by criminal nincompoops.

My personal values dictate that I be significantly more careful with money when it is someone else's money. Even if you gave me $20 to get you a Burrito, I'll get you the best deal, tip the minimum, and give you your exact change. I'd even give you a few cents more just in case because I don't want to be owing you anything.

So when a group of people behaves irresponsibly with people's money it boils my blood. He deserves every jail year he got, just on the hubris alone.

rsoto2
0 replies
33m

Mugging is more traumatic short term? In total, white collar wage-theft dwarfs property theft but you may not feel its effects immediately.

micromacrofoot
0 replies
28m

Mugging is much more violent and personal. SBF didn't see you and think "that's the person I'm going to get" he essentially created a fraud machine that you and hundreds of others got caught up in. Very impersonal.

michael1999
0 replies
20m

Maybe had already internalized the idea that money "invested" in crypto is doomed to theft, or collapse. Slot machine players have a similar vibe -- the money is already gone, even before it enters the machine.

freedomben
0 replies
25m

Purely speculation on my part, but I tend to feel similarly, and I think the reason is that the mugger includes a physical threat of violence.

Evolutionarily, the emergence of an economy with capital at modern-day scales are so new that we haven't had time to really adjust emotionally. It kind of reminds me of the various birds on previously untouched-by-humanity islands that had no fear of humans and would just sit there and allow a human to club them to death, until their species went extinct. They had no time evolutionarily to develop an innate (emotional) fear of humans.

Physical violence/robbery on the other hand is a long-standing human tradition, and something we are hardwired to react to emotionally (Amygdala vs. PFC, etc). We can of course override our Amygdalas with our PFCs to some extent (in the medium to long-term), but the "gut reaction" core is still there.

Another possible reason (for me at least) is that ethically I have a lot of inner turmoil over violent punishments (which physical incarceration absolutely is IMHO) for nonviolent crimes. Of course reality is much more grayscale than that given that crimes like SBFs could leave a family destitute and starving, which is violence-adjacent if not outrightly violent. A violent sentence for a violent crime intuitively feels a lot more "let the punishment fit the crime" than a violent sentence for a nonviolent crime.

Anyway, I don't have answers, but throwing some speculation onto the pile.

flockonus
0 replies
30m

It's good to process the emotions associated, if truly is none, then great! Still suggest meditating if something didn't get pushed under the mind's rug with the financial loss.

Definitely move on, this case had some external closure where most hurts in life don't.

ShamelessC
0 replies
54m

It is _obviously_ healthy to forget about it and move on. Having said that, any anger at the guy is going to be not because he effected any one person, but because he effected so many - and because he embodied a particular attitude in the cryptocurrency world that lives on in so many others who haven't yet had their luck run out.

KenArrari
0 replies
16m

A mugger is less likely to be deterred by fear of punishments. It usually comes from desperation and impulsiveness, it's not like they've carefully weighed their chances of being caught. SBF probably thought "If I get away with this I get a billion dollars and if I don't I just get a slap on the wrist and go back to normal life".

I think not letting anger factor into it is good, but we also have to make sure the deterrence is there to prevent the inevitable future SBF.

setgree
18 replies
2h3m

An uncle once commented about a cousin of ours that he demonstrated how it's possible to screw things up so badly that you can't possibly recover. I think that's true for Sam. I hope it's not true for the people in his orbit; I hope they can get out from under this and try to find meaning, ideally from repairing the harm they've done.

As Rick Heicklen writes, "We are not ever going to be Sam. But we could be Caroline, or Nishad, or Natalie. Or even Michael Lewis. We could easily make the same mistakes they do." [0]

[0] https://asteriskmag.com/issues/05/michael-lewis-s-blind-side, posted previously here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39118124

FabHK
13 replies
1h42m

FWIW, I didn't find Lewis's book as bad (or amoral) as it's often made out to be. Yes, he didn't put his judgement in every paragraph, but his description of SBF was:

a) absolutely damning! SBF's lack of empathy, his notion that (given that everyone else is stupid) he knew best and should basically ignore the advice of everyone else (particularly his elders), his naive utilitarianism without any deontological/virtue temperance, his reckless "many-worlds" risk-neutrality in gambling - that was all described in detail in the book, even if it was not explicitly condemned. Lewis didn't bother to show why these traits are bad. (I don't know what Lewis himself thought about them, but who cares? Show, don't tell.)

b) empathetic, eliciting compassion. Sure, the kid was screwed up, but here's why. And, btw, you might well have turned out the same way under similar circumstances, but for the grace of god.

My conclusion: 1) Lewis's book was good and insightful, and it's unfair to describe it as an apologia. 2) SBF has severe moral deficiencies and belongs in prison for a long time, but not because he is "evil". 3) Let's have some damn humility.

tootie
2 replies
1h7m

Banality of evil. I'm sure SBF seems like a decent person who just wants to run a cool business and play with technology. He never thought he was a crook.

gizmo
1 replies
59m

I don't think the banality of evil applies here. Banality of evil is when cogs in a bureaucratic machine don't think about how their actions hurt others, because they are just processing paperwork or following standard operating procedure. Regular people doing regular people things can do great evil.

In this case SBF was the architect and the driving force behind the fraud. He decided to comingle customers funds with business funds. He decided to trick banks into processing client money. He decided to split FTX into dozens of shell corporations to make effective oversight impossible. He decided to operate from Hong Kong and the Bahama's.

Banality of evil might apply to a junior engineer at FTX. It doesn't apply to SBF who masterminded the whole criminal enterprise.

tootie
0 replies
35m

The phrase was coined in reference to Adolf Eichmann.

jimmydddd
2 replies
52m

I think I read that Lewis was almost finished with the book, which was about to come out, and which was highly pro-SBF, when the FTX scandal Broke? So he then had to quickly revise and "save" the book by changing the tone in view of the FTX scandal? If so, it's probably an unusual book in view of the last hour rewrites.

caturopath
1 replies
45m

That doesn't seem to be the case at all. A lot of the sympathetic content occurs _after_ the scandal and arrest, and Lewis has continued to take the same tone in interviews. Further, an inordinate amount of time is dedicated earlier in the book to a problem at Alameda that Lewis draws parallels to the scandal that took him down, clearly working toward his thesis. Lewis is one of the most-read living authors: they could have gotten a crack team of editors to help him revise the book in no time if he wanted to. It seems that his _actual_ take was that SBF was a dumbass rather than a criminal mastermind. It's not even an implausible view.

nemo44x
0 replies
2m

It seems that his _actual_ take was that SBF was a dumbass rather than a criminal mastermind.

He was a dumbass though. He got caught up in it all and you bend, bend, bend until the next thing you know...

gizmo
1 replies
1h10m

I very much agree. "Number go up" by Faux is the better book in many respects, but Lewis's book contains much background info not reported elsewhere. Lewis's book is damning about SBF as you said. About how unapologetic and manipulative he is. About his willingness to gamble with other people's money. About his complete lack of ethical boundaries. About the casual way SBF ignored all laws he didn't like. About SBF's history of reckless gambling.

Yes, Lewis was (and probably still is) sympathetic to SBF. But that's also how he got him to talk! The book wouldn't have been possible had Lewis behaved as a skeptical investigative journalist. Lewis gave SBF all the rope he needed to hang himself with, and that was all he needed to do.

FabHK
0 replies
40m

Lewis gave SBF all the rope he needed to hang himself with, and that was all he needed to do.

Very nicely put.

Book recommendations: Faux Number go up is beautifully reported, in particular on the many scam and trafficking victims, the culture (Bored Ape parties), some of the players (eg SBF, the Tether people, etc.), and the underlying anarcho-capitalist mindset.

On the impact on the underprivileged (that the "check your financial privilege" and "banking the unbanked" predatory inclusion crypto crowd purports to care so much for), the green-washing of Bitcoin, the crypto philanthropy "bad samaritans", Metaverse and Web3, check Peter Howson's Let Them Eat Crypto.

Ben McKenzie and Jacob Silverman's Easy Money is another non-technical examination of fraud in crypto, El Salvador, and the severe consequences for victims.

compiler-guy
1 replies
1h35m

Lewis also soft-sells the polyamorous relationships and complications that caused around SBF's relationship with Caroline Ellison. Caroline wants to go public, and why that would be a much bigger deal in the polyamorous world they were living in.

It's similar in many of Lewis's other analysis of SBF's relationships. Lewis avoids context that makes SBF look much worse.

thot_experiment
0 replies
1h23m

I'm not familiar with the book but this doesn't sound like it pattern matches with any of the poly I've experienced. Going public is a big deal in poly in particular? Since when? What kind of self respecting tech bro group house doesn't have a graph of all the poly on their whiteboard?

lazide
0 replies
1h32m

What is your definition of 'evil' if not self-serving, lacking in empathy for others, and amoral?

Would he have to torture puppies for fun to check all the boxes? Because if so, Hitler loved dogs.

jallen_dot_dev
0 replies
5m

kid

He's a 32 year old man.

JumpCrisscross
0 replies
1h30m

btw, you might well have turned out the same way under similar circumstances

Which is where it’s bullshit arising out of the incentives of access journalism.

The Heinlen quote is more meaningful: you won’t be Sam. (If you’re in the set of people who could be Sam, the conversation is different.) But you might fall into his orbit.

sopooneo
1 replies
1h42m

No dog in this race either way, but what is Michael Lewis meant to have done? Is it just that people feel hist treatment of SBF in Going Infinite was too lenient?

caturopath
0 replies
44m

Exactly.

thedrbrian
0 replies
7m

Not true for the people in his orbit

You mean the other people at FTX or Alameda who knew it was a scam?

khazhoux
0 replies
22m

An uncle once commented about a cousin of ours that he demonstrated how it's possible to screw things up so badly that you can't possibly recover.

Enough SBF talk. Let’s hear some cousin stories!

zippothrowaway
16 replies
2h31m

I remember the wise people on here repeatedly commenting that he would never even be prosecuted because he donated to the Democrats.

hluska
6 replies
2h28m

What’s with the sudden turn to “haha everyone was wrong in the past” on here?

There’s nothing wrong with being wrong. What’s the point?

zippothrowaway
0 replies
2h18m

The point is not that people were wrong but they were wrong because they had knee-jerk, lazy takes that should be disparaged.

I also know that the some of the people making these kind of takes have already pivoted to another knee-jerk, lazy take along the lines of "well, he ripped off rich people".

I'd actually appreciate it if anybody who made the original statements about Democrats not prosecuting SBF would come on and admit they were wrong.

winwang
0 replies
2h25m

I'd say it depends on how confident/aggressive someone was. Perhaps OP didn't word it the best way, but it's also good to pause and reflect?

spencerflem
0 replies
2h19m

the point is that the older comments were confidently accusing the democrats of being corrupt, in a way that they weren't. its political

segasaturn
0 replies
2h25m

There's nothing wrong with being wrong, but its important to remember the times that we were and remind ourselves that we are not infallible :)

jeffbee
0 replies
2h19m

It is absolutely worth remembering that much of the commentary on this site is written by some of the most gullible people on the planet. Aside from SBF-Biden conspiracy fans you also have your anti-vax guys, your climate denial guys, suckers for the latest superconductor scam, people who are still falling for a giant astroturf campaign by the fission industry, blockchain believers, and much much more.

acdha
0 replies
2h18m

A lot of people confuse cynicism with wisdom, and that sets people up to be susceptible to bigger problems. For example, if you believe the legal system is corrupt and dysfunctional, it’s very easy to passively tune out and not support reform efforts because you think they’re pointless.

We see this a lot in politics where accusations of corruption are used to conflate people who are orders of magnitude apart – a good example of that are the recent classified documents investigations where some faux-sophisticates tried the “both sides do it!” excuse without recognizing the difference between immediate compliance and protracted resistance on contrived grounds.

pixxel
4 replies
2h25m

He’s ‘new money’. Useful to ‘old money’; nothing more.

malermeister
3 replies
2h23m

There is no "old money" in the US. The country is young enough for all of it to be "new money".

hammock
2 replies
2h19m

You realize with this comment you are supporting the conspiracy theories about real old money bloodlines from Europe controlling the US, right?

malermeister
0 replies
1h46m

wat?

John_Cena
0 replies
2h6m

conspiracy theory is not a bad word. Do you realize you are supporting the farce that says anything labeled conspiracy theory is not worth examining?

stronglikedan
0 replies
2h2m

People say things all the time. That's not relevant to this story, and is kind of flamebaity.

hnthrow9009
0 replies
2h17m

They dropped the campaign finance violations case with zero reasoning

Ekaros
0 replies
1h58m

Is he going to keep donating? Very likely not, so no reason to keep him out...

swader999
4 replies
2h31m

Yes, I was one of those doubters.

rsynnott
2 replies
2h21m

Why, as a matter of interest? These _really_ big, blatant frauds usually do; see Madoff, Holmes, et al. Like, it's hard to see how he'd avoid prison, certainly in the US.

Other noted fraud-y bitcoin exchange guy Mark Karpelès avoided prison after conviction, but the evidence was much weaker there and they only found him guilty on fraudulently inflating MtGox's holdings (a la Donald Trump); also, that was Japan.

(Fun fact; after the collapse of MtGox, Karpelès went into business with Andrew Lee, the guy who broke freenode and claims to be the Crown Prince of Korea. The world of weird internet grifters is small and incestuous.)

swader999
1 replies
2h19m

He was well connected, especially his parents. Huge political donor. He likely would have recieved a small sentence and somewhat validated my doubt had he not purgured and witness tampered during the trial.

rsynnott
0 replies
2h13m

Sure, but, like, so were Madoff and Holmes. Henry Kissinger, _Henry Kissinger_, was on Theranos's board. Rupert Murdoch invested. I don't think SBF really had anyone on that level?

There is a certain point where it no longer matters; such connections would only really matter if they could get the investigation stopped. Once it goes to court, assuming it's a proper court, those sort of connections kind of cease to matter.

arrowsmith
0 replies
2h28m

I had my doubts, but I'm glad to see they were unfounded. He's getting what he deserves.

ceejayoz
4 replies
2h31m

Yeah, it's been a bit funny to watch the goalposts move. He won't be arrested, he won't be charged, he won't go to trial, he won't be convicted, he'll get a light sentence, his political donations will get him off, etc.

JKCalhoun
3 replies
2h22m

And I'm wondering now, who else will join him?

user90131313
0 replies
2h11m

everyone except Sam Trabucco of alameda , very litte mention of him

lawgimenez
0 replies
2h10m

That dude from Binance should be next.

ceejayoz
0 replies
2h21m

Several others have already pled guilty; most notably Wang, Ellison, and Salame.

lesuorac
1 replies
1h56m

Honestly, downvoted.

The top voted comment in that topic is saying he's going to jail. Just because in a forum with a gazillion people some people have a different one doesn't make it representative of the median/mean/etc.

Also, it's not bad to have a counter-opinion to a group; it is bad to claim a singular opinion is that of the group without any actual justification.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33908577

ceejayoz
0 replies
1h48m

The top voted comment in that topic is also saying "For everyone on this thread making broad proclamations about how SBF won't go to jail", yes? Implying quite a few people held that opinion here?

chongli
1 replies
2h28m

One person was cynical. Everyone else chimed in to correct that person: SBF was "new money" which carries no social status to protect against jail time.

ceejayoz
0 replies
2h26m

There were dozens if not hundreds of SBF threads; the above link is just one subthread of one of those threads. In each of them, quite a few people would argue he'd never see consequences; his political donations were extensively pointed to as evidence of this.

(Including, notably, Elon Musk: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1591822387267665921)

paulryanrogers
0 replies
2h28m

Plenty of us did think he'd go to jail. There are even examples in the linked thread.

latexr
0 replies
1h14m

Your argument that HN didn’t think he was going to jail is a heavily downvoted post whose top reply says he’s going to jail?

segasaturn
15 replies
2h27m

For those wondering, prosecutors asked for 50 years in prison, defense asked for 5 years. So this sentence is right down the middle. 50 years in prison would have been way too long IMO.

bearjaws
7 replies
1h23m

Stole 1% from the pension fund for Ontario's teachers.

Stole unknown amounts of peoples retirement.

Ruined many peoples lives.

How is 50 years too long? The literal largest fraud case in history doesn't even have a life sentence...

We are sending a clear message, grift and steal your way to the top and then get out just in time to retire with all your stolen goods.

You know when he gets out he is gonna go unlock a dead wallet with 100BTC (or some other coin) in it and become an expat.

segasaturn
4 replies
1h16m

25 years is a long, long time. He's going to spend the best years of his life in federal prison and come out the other side in a world that's moved on without him. 25 years ago the World Trade Center buildings were still standing.

IMO, if we're thinking of sentencing someone to 50 years or life in prison, we should cut to the chase and execute them instead. It's faster and cheaper for the taxpayers, and arguably less cruel.

Zaskoda
2 replies
1h7m

He'll serve for less than 15 years, which is a blink of an eye given the devastation he caused.

dragonwriter
1 replies
1h5m

Unless he dies, gets a pardon, commutation, or sentence reduction first, the minimum he can serve under existing law is ~21 years based on a 25 year sentence and maximum good conduct time.

nkurz
0 replies
34m

You're usually a very accurate poster on legal matters, but this contradicts the linked article:

SBF may serve as little as 12.5 years, if he gets all of the jailhouse credit available to him," Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor, told CNN.

Federal prisoners generally can earn up to 54 days of time credit a year for good behavior, which could result in an approximately 15% reduction.

Since 2018, however, nonviolent federal inmates can reduce their sentence by as much as 50% under prison reform legislation known as the First Step Act.

Are you saying the article is wrong, or did you maybe not consider this possibility?

EasyMark
0 replies
1h10m

we don't execute for financial fraud and white collar crimes. I do think prisoners should be given an option for assisted suicide in cases where they get 50+ year sentences, however. Obviously there would be more complexities to that like wait times and mental evaluations.

dboreham
0 replies
25m

Wait...why did a public pension fund invest in crypto-related <something>? (I still don't know what FTXes product was, but clearly it wasn't bare BTC or ETH, implying it was a risky derivative of a risky underlying asset).

EasyMark
0 replies
1h12m

I think like all these white collar crime cases it's as much about emotion and appearance as actual damage. SBF wasn't a career criminal with multiple past grifts, and he didn't have any violent acts associated with the grift. So he got a lighter sentence. If he had been a part of a crime family, it would have been much longer. I'm not sure that the prosecutors are allowed to bring in tangential loss of life like multiple suicides (bankruptcy, financial destruction) that were no doubt triggered by SBF's efforts to defraud people.

JKCalhoun
5 replies
2h25m

Well, 27.5 would be right down the middle.

As others have suggested, likely he won't even serve the 25 though.

n2d4
1 replies
1h38m

You should use a geometric mean for this sort of stuff. The difference between a one- and two-year sentence is much bigger than 25 and 26.

So that would be 16 years, though obviously, it's foolish to use "right down the middle" as a heuristic for something like this. (The more severe a crime, the more incentive the defense has to pretend like it didn't happen at all.)

orwin
0 replies
1h31m

I did not know about geometric mean (and i do have a math bachelor, granted it wasn't in statistics but still). Thank you, this is a great tool.

loeg
1 replies
1h45m

As others have suggested, likely he won't even serve the 25 though.

Because instead he'll serve 21.25?

sgt
0 replies
48m

Maybe serve 15 then the rest with a foot tracker thingie at home?

winwang
0 replies
2h12m

If you use the made up averaging scheme of ((5^p+50^p)/2^p)^(1/p), 25 is the limit as p -> inf (i think).

...Because it just simplifies to 50/2 lol.

gwill
0 replies
2h24m

the bullet points at the top of the article say they asked for 40-50 years and that his defense said 6.5 years.

layer8
13 replies
1h34m

From the article, SBF will likely be out in 2036, at the age of 45. There’s a good chance he’ll get himself into shenanigans again, if not already from inside prison.

hodgesrm
6 replies
1h25m

Or he could end up like Michael Milken, who went to jail for securities fraud but became known as a philanthropist. As Gandalf once said to Frodo,

   Pity? It's a pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some 
   that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to 
   deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. [0] 
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7374580-frodo-it-s-a-pity-b...

jonathankoren
4 replies
1h3m

A philanthropist with the money he stole? His entire fortune is fruit of the poisoned tree. Milken is trash. He was in the 80s, and he is trash in the 20s.

No amount of philanthropy washing can erase the damage his done.

Fuck that guy.

jerlam
2 replies
56m

Milken spent less than two years in prison, and was fined $600 million.

SBF has been sentenced for 25 years, and fined $11 billion. Pretty big difference - how much money does he have left?

jonathankoren
1 replies
43m

I honestly don't know what your point is. The topic being debated, "Is Michael Milken good?"

__loam
0 replies
16m

I'm not broadly aware of what Milken did but it sounds like he paid the price for his crimes and served his sentence. If he's rejoined society and has had a positive social impact, I'd call that a win.

digging
0 replies
57m

I mean, the damage is done. Let's not condemn him for at least doing good now. Would you rather he did nothing at all?

nradov
0 replies
47m

Michael Milken got a raw deal. His actual criminal offenses only resulted in $318K of damages and were largely related to facilitating tax fraud by others. He was a piker compared to SBF. The judge in Milken's case gave him an unusually harsh sentence explicitly as a deterrent to others; I suspect it would have actually been lower under current federal sentencing guidelines.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/highly-c...

justinator
1 replies
1h23m

I do enjoy the idea that he'll create a prison super economy based on promissory notes for ramen packets and cigarettes that are tracked in some sort of hand-written block chain kept under their bunk bed and shared between toilet water pipes.

Or maybe he'll just start making yogurt.

https://www.odt.co.nz/lifestyle/magazine/yoghurt-mafia-unexp...

AlexCoventry
1 replies
58m

I think there's a good chance his tendencies to arrogance and mendacity will get him killed in prison.

gizajob
0 replies
50m

Maybe not killed but pummelled on the regular. He might be cut out for crypto fraud but he’s definitely not going to be cut out for such a long stretch in a “survival of the fittest” environment. Any skills he has are worse than useless inside.

timbo1642
0 replies
38m

He'll do about 30% or less. Maybe they'll say jails are full again and release most the inmates like they did during covid.

gizmo
0 replies
53m

It also means his co-conspirators will get a much lesser sentence (if any). Kind of disappointing that nobody else will see the inside of a prison cell. Ellison, Wang, Singh and SBF's parents all deserve lengthy sentences.

mrbonner
12 replies
1h11m

I really don't understand the severity of criminal justice system punishment. SBF got sentenced to 25 years for a white collar financial crime while a guy in my hometown hit and killed 2 people, while DUI and ran over 100mph on a local street with 35mph limit got 26 months sentence forb2 vehicular homicide.

bena
3 replies
1h6m

Intent has a lot to do with it.

SBF operated with forethought and malice. He intended to deceive people. He was trying to commit fraud.

Hometown guy did not intend to crash or kill anybody.

Now the results of hometown guy's actions were more direct and severe, but had he had the choice, he would not have crashed and killed anybody. He's not a criminal, just a fucking idiot.

Aaargh20318
2 replies
1h3m

SBF operated with forethought and malice.

And hometown guy accidentally got behind the wheel of a car while drunk?

rcMgD2BwE72F
0 replies
56m

A well-known effect of alcohol intoxication is cognitive impairment.

bena
0 replies
28m

You think he woke up that day and said to himself, "Today, I'm going to get drunk, drive my car, speed, crash, and kill two people."

No. He did not. Everything that happened was likely unplanned. Hence, no forethought. And I doubt he was trying to hit anybody. Hence, no malice.

Yes, he still made those choices and they were bad choices. So he does need to make restitution. But the fact that he wasn't intentionally trying to do what he did makes his offense different than SBF's.

Now, is there an issue that our penal system is ultimately more punitive than rehabilitory? Of course, but even from a punitive standpoint, accidental murder should warrant less punishment than intentional large-scale multi-billion dollar fraud. We can't base punishments solely on the outcome of an event. Intent of the perpetrator has to matter.

z2
0 replies
1h5m

Not that this holds up to scrutiny, and there are certainly issues with fungibility of lives and money, but let's say the value of a life in the US is $10 million. $10 billion in fraud is 1,000 lives claimed. The sentence could have been worse.

survirtual
0 replies
1h7m

The money he stole and defrauded is lifetimes worth. Lifetimes of economics stolen from people. Lifetimes of stresses caused on people because of what he stole. How many people may have ended their lives because they lost everything? How many silenced voices are there in pain because of his fraud?

White collar criminals can and should be likened to serial killers in the severity of their crimes. They spread invisible miseries indiscriminately, near entirely without justice or recognition. I am glad one of them is finally being properly punished.

rcMgD2BwE72F
0 replies
59m

a guy in my hometown hit and killed 2 people, while DUI and ran over 100mph on a local street with 35mph limit

What was his plan? What did he expect to earn from this action? And now, who would plan to DUI because they believe it's worth a 26-month sentence?

SBF knew what we was doing and did it knowingly. He thought he wouldn't be caught and earn a few extra billions. Unless we was drunk all along…

It's about the long-term planning and the clear intent to choose a path with such a risk/reward ratio.

publius_0xf3
0 replies
1h1m

Motor crimes are punished leniently because almost everyone drives, and every driver can imagine themselves making a mistake behind the wheel and they don't want that mistake to ruin their life or the lives of their loved ones.

I'm not saying it's right. But it's the tacit consensus we maintain to make ourselves comfortable with the risks of piloting deadly machines every day.

hgfghj
0 replies
1h5m

Vehicular deaths are almost always under prosecuted in the US.

This does not mean that it should be legal to defraud people of billions of dollars, ruin countless lives, and harm many more.

This is a rare case where a white collar crime was appropriately punished. Sam showed no remorse, and no evidence that he would not engage in similar crimes in the future. He earned this time.

Hopefully he’ll reform and be worthy of early release; but candidly I doubt it. I think he’s irredeemable.

doctorpangloss
0 replies
49m

This was intriguing to me, so I want to share how I did some light investigation of the question.

https://chat.openai.com/share/2dc83d60-d14b-4438-8226-ac59de...

I don't know if it can summarize books correctly always, it almost always does; and I also don't know if there's just a bias in publishing about race relations because that sells.

But it seems right to me that the most orthodox opinion is that racial bias, drug policy and socioeconomic status are the biggest factors in the severity of sentencing in general.

So you are referencing two acutely exceptional cases - a white collar crime by a rich person that only somewhat interacts with drug abuse of Aderrall that is acutely severely punished, and a drug-related crime that is acutely poorly punished.

bdcravens
0 replies
1h0m

White-collar criminals doing fed time are serving "easier" time than those in state prisons.

That said, I've personally known of two people who were convicted of DWI vehicular manslaughter, and they both received 15-year sentences, so 26 months seems to be an aberration.

Aaargh20318
0 replies
1h5m

It’s simple really. Money is considered more important than human lives.

laidoffamazon
12 replies
2h19m

I recall people very confidently saying he would never be prosecuted for his political ties.

petertodd
4 replies
1h54m

...and enough people pointing that out, and making it clear that they are outraged by the possibility of that happening, makes it harder to get away with him avoiding prosecution because of his political ties.

This is likely an example of free speech and free press working to overcome corruption to achieve justice.

ceejayoz
3 replies
1h45m

So, any result would've been evidence of corruption?

("This is good news for Bitcoin.")

petertodd
2 replies
1h27m

I think we can look at SBF's political ties and make a reasonable guess at how likely it was that there were people trying to get him a deal with minimal jail time. You don't need specific evidence of that to say it was likely happening; the outcome is obvious evidence that if that was happening, the attempts failed.

Not sure why you are bringing up Bitcoin; SBF's business didn't have much to do with Bitcoin, beyond it being one of many methods used to deposit and withdraw funds.

laidoffamazon
1 replies
1h16m

This sounds like a pretty startling goalpost shift.

petertodd
0 replies
1h11m

As I said: "This is likely an example of free speech and free press working to overcome corruption to achieve justice."

I used the word "likely" for a reason.

stronglikedan
1 replies
2h3m

People say things all the time. That's not relevant to this story, and is kind of flamebaity.

CodeWriter23
1 replies
1h47m

The regime occasionally must sacrifice one of its own to grant the appearance of fairness to its politically-motivated prosecutions of its opponents.

laidoffamazon
0 replies
1h29m

Sounds unfalsifiable

vuln
0 replies
1h45m

You ain’t seen nothing yet. Those ties are what’s going to get his sentence commuted by Biden.

MattGaiser
0 replies
2h6m

Those people have pivoted to claiming either that a pardon is imminent or that 25 years is a weak penalty.

Analemma_
0 replies
2h8m

Those same people have effortlessly pivoted to saying that 25 years is a slap on the wrist (I'd like to see them stay locked in a prison for 25 years to demonstrate they actually believe this).

nemo44x
9 replies
2h29m

He will have to serve 21 years before early release. There is no parole in federal prison. I heard 5 years are concurrent making it 20 actual years. If that’s the case he can get out in 17 years.

He wasted a good part of his life.

sgt101
4 replies
2h26m

Is this fedral? I thought it was Manhattan DA?

nemo44x
2 replies
2h21m

Nope, it's Federal. He has appeals coming up though. I have no idea what the outcome could be but there's an opportunity for the sentence to be reduced on appeal. Honestly, this sentence doesn't appear egregious or "being made an example of" so IMO he doesn't get a reduction. But, sometimes you get a sympathetic judge?

serjester
1 replies
2h1m

If the same court put Ross Ulbricht (a way more sympathetic case) for 40 years, no way they're lenient on SBF.

Al0neStar
0 replies
53m

Ross Ulbricht got two life sentences plus 40 years without parole.

dragonwriter
0 replies
2h15m

Its a federal case tried by the US Attorney’s office for, and in the US District Court for, the Southern District of New York.

Media will sometimes (because this are in Manhattan) label these as a Manhattan/New York prosecutors or a Manhattan court, but it is federal, not state, prosecutors and court in New York, not New York prosecutors or court.

arrowsmith
1 replies
2h27m

I don't get it, what's the difference between parole and early release? Also how do you get to 21 and 17 from 25 and 20?

kosievdmerwe
0 replies
2h23m

Parole means you're still serving your time and have a bunch of restrictions on movement and other things.

Early release means your sentence is concluded and the only lasting impacts on your life is that of having been convicted of a felony.

nabla9
0 replies
1h13m

The article says different. Tell me why it's wrong.

gamblor956
0 replies
2h21m

No, it was 20 years + 5 years, to be served consecutively, so the total term is 25 years.

zemariagp
8 replies
2h5m

Good time to reflect on Ross Ulbright’s 2xLife sentence

mzs
7 replies
1h51m

One life sentence and that was based largely on him paying to have five people murdered.

boomboomsubban
0 replies
7m

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/29/silk-road...

The 31-year-old physics graduate and former boy scout was handed five sentences: one for 20 years, one for 15 years, one for five and two for life.

I can't find the actual court documents, but I personally find a report from someone presumably at the trial more trustworthy than a government press release.

krisoft
0 replies
1h0m

The judge can take into consideration during sentencing conduct not explicitly charged. Heck they can take into consideration things you have been acquitted over by a jury too.

That is right (I'm telling you how the law is, not how it should be) A jury can decide that it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you did something and yet you can still receiver a heavier sentence for it. (as long as they don't acquit you over all charges.)

vuln
2 replies
1h44m

No one was actually murdered.

How many people have been murdered by the policies and laws due to politicians funded by bankman?

amanaplanacanal
1 replies
1h31m

Not sure you should get a lighter sentence because you tried to murder someone and failed.

rootusrootus
0 replies
1h6m

In most jurisdictions, though, you do. Attempted murder does not get the same punishment that murder does. Though I agree with the premise that it should get substantially similar punishment. Successful murder should get a bit more due to the consequences.

marcus_holmes
7 replies
1h49m

I love HN, it's one of the few places you can get reasoned conversation online.

But this is one of those subjects where it gets weird.

SBF was directly responsible for millions, if not billions, of direct monetary loss to identified individuals. Yet the top comments on HN are all discussing whether incarceration is retribution, spite, deterrence, or rehabilition.

The USA incarcerates people for tiny financial damages at a higher rate than anywhere else in the world. $20 of theft? 5 years away, no problem. $1 billion: well we should consider what we're trying to achieve here...

If the USA is going to be consistent in sentencing then just fucking kill him.

Or reconsider and free the thousands of black dudes serving ridiculous sentences for minor crimes.

brandonmenc
2 replies
1h35m

$20 of theft? 5 years away

Who in this day and age is going to jail for half a decade because they snuck a 20 dollar bill out of the cash register when no one was looking?

There are almost always violent actions involved that are conveniently glossed over whenever someone bemoans “life in prison for stealing a loaf of bread!”

shuckles
1 replies
42m

Nobody. Federal prisoners are almost entirely convicted of serious violent crime.

monocasa
0 replies
8m

Which is why you saw this with relatively local and state level prosecutions from 90s tough on crime policies like three strikes laws.

tredre3
1 replies
1h9m

I've noticed the same trend. HN (as a collective) doesn't believe in punishing white-collar crimes with incarceration. I guess it hits too close to home.

anon291
0 replies
19m

Realistically, I mainly believe in punishing violent crimes with incarceration. Most white collar criminals could be sufficiently contained with house arrest and restrictions on visits/internet access/etc. Just realistically, you can keep a financier in an apartment they pay for, but probably not a good idea for someone who's murdered and burglared.

thuuuomas
0 replies
37m

It’s simple - everyone here arguing the merits of a lower sentence identifies with Sam.

anon291
0 replies
22m

Violent crime is ultimately more than just monetary damages.

Like realistically, sbf can just be kept in a fenced compound. He's shown no great violent urge. House arrest would probably serve the same purpose of removing him from the population for X years.

Someone breaking into a building is a lot different. They need more security and cause more chaos.

tdudhhu
6 replies
26m

The difference between opinions in this thread is interesting.

I think it's mainly because some see a punishment as revenge and others as correction.

But, as user publius_0xf3 is showing, revenge does not work. The victims don't get their money back.

If this sentence is used as correction I also think it does not work. Would such a correction really take 25 years? His life is over. I don't see how such a long time is helpful to him, to his victims and to society.

tracedddd
1 replies
23m

What do you think about it being a preventative measure against future SBFs?

quasarj
0 replies
8m

Isn't there tons of evidence that this simply doesn't work?

I mean, I don't know this SBF guy, but do you think he thought there would be no punishment if he got caught stealing 8 billion dollars? I think his plan was not to get caught.

edgyquant
0 replies
25m

If you think it’s “revenge” then yeah, you can say it doesn’t work. In reality it is a punishment and deterrent to future victimizers.

__loam
0 replies
19m

He was judged before a jury of his peers and found wanting. It's not revenge, it's being held accountable for his actions. Some crimes, like murder, can't just be "corrected". The solution we've landed on as a society is for there to be a punitive cost to be paid by the responsible individual. In this case, it's jail time.

SBF caused an incredible amount of irreparable harm with his actions, which almost certainly has resulted in suicides. He deserves this punishment.

YellowZeeZee
0 replies
8m

The sentence is neither revenge nor correction. It's simply punishment for having broken the rules.

Society is not necessary interested in helping him. Ultimately he's not that important.

What is important is maintaining the rule of law and preserving faith in the justice system.

KenArrari
0 replies
7m

The next potential SBF will look at this sentencing and realize "oh stealing money isn't worth the risk of spending my entire life in prison".

SBF probably assumed that if he got caught nothing would happen because he's witnessed that historically.

pierat
6 replies
1h29m

This type of punishment is actually pretty terrible for all parties.

I could easily see a different, harsher, but more fair punishment...

1. All assets are sold off to pay victims

2. Prison for a few years. 5?

3. can only work jobs where nobody reports to them (no management, C levels, etc). Also cannot make companies.

4. Cannot own more than 2 properties, one of which is his place of residence.

5. Cannot rent out any property.

6. 25% of what he makes goes into restitution for the rest of his life.

7. Investments into any wealth instrument is to be confiscated, with exception to a 401k.

Basically, this person cannot be trusted with making money other than by working for someone else. This still allows him to make a life, but severely limits the similar path he used to defraud people.

Sending this guy to prison for 25 years is a waste for everyone involved.

lfkdev
1 replies
1h18m

True. But americans love to waste their tax money and put harmless (in a physical violence sense) people like him behind bars instead of doing something useful for society. In 10 years he'll be free and start the next scam with the couple of millions he's probably hiding somewhere.

FabHK
0 replies
1h11m

That's quite a definition of harmless you have there.

soerxpso
0 replies
16m

He's well-connected within the easiest industry ever to launder money in. Realistically, after the 5 years he'd get a job consulting for a buddy at the heart of some other cryptocurrency exchange, and from that position he would find a lot of scummy ways to make sidemoney under the table, none of which would go to his victims, since it would all be hidden. He doesn't need to have his own direct reports if he has the ear of someone else who does.

Even if he does everything above-board, the absolute most he could expect to make legally from a job that's not a grift and has no direct reports would be ~500K/yr. Over 60 years, that would mean his victims get back $30,000,000, or about 0.3% of what he stole.

rustcleaner
0 replies
40m

Sending this guy to prison for 25 years is a waste for everyone involved.

Agreed. 10 years is pretty much a life sentence already; who is the same person that they were a decade ago? Sentences beyond 10 years are not instructive but punitive and sadistic: if you're putting people in cages for that long then justice would be better served to banish. International waters? Make an interior Australia on federal lands over a few States: walled off with full security entry/exit points?

Not only is taking so many years equivalent to partial death, without the normalcies prison strips from its victims (yes America's prisoners are victims like the Brit's victims of hang-em for everything were still victims) it effectively kills off the family lines of these people because only a few states have conjugal visits. Most prisoners in the US are in enforced inceldom. If you argue crime is genetic and it's a good thing they are prevented from reproducing, then you just contravened civils rights arguments against that.

As bad as the American ones are, Japan treats you worse. I got to hear my internet friend and troll JS on voice chat after Japan let him out of jail, what he said completely disabused me of any interest in visiting that place. It's soft torture not by exposure to appaling conditions (US), but by excruciating and consistent techniques of 'light' torture employed, such as only being able to sit/kneal and lay in two positions almost every bit of all 24-hour periods and being unable to communicate with anybody. It is a mental solitary confinement, and if I witnessed some parent treat even an "unruly child" the way the Japanese system treats those in their custody, I would see pink mist/red cave and be sent off to prison for a long time myself.

Zimbardo's prison experiment decades ago should have indicated to us that we are experiencing dozens of holocaust-tier human rights crises (sans the mass deaths) every year these things continue to operate in current form.

If you can't treat them as human in prison (partial autonomy, dignity), then you are saying they are criminally insane. If they are insane, they need to be in an assylum and not a dungeon (assylums had {and may still have [idk]} their own serious issues too). Prison should never be punitive, that is partially killing someone to punish them. Deterrence Theory is century old bunk we tell ourselves so we don't feel bad for Uncle Ned possibly being equivalent to a camp guard in a massive human rights quagmire made trying to address a millennia-old problem.

Wow, this turned into a rant! Time to smack submit, push the hemorrhoid back up, flush, and be done! :^)

daedrdev
0 replies
39m

He will serve 12.5 unless he is truly a dumbass though good behavior for nonviolent crime.

Don't forget he has ruined many peoples lives, and probably driven quite a few to kill themselves.

JumpCrisscross
0 replies
1h20m

still allows him to make a life, but severely limits the similar path he used to defraud people

Do you remember the trial? The man can’t follow rules. You would be wasting the court every microsecond because Sam decides he doesn’t understand what two properties or renting technically means.

codedokode
6 replies
1h19m

To be honest, isn't 25 years too much? He didn't beat or kill anyone, he simply found dumb people and took little of their money. It is not like he was robbing poor people by increasing their utilities bill every year or raising rent. Why is such a small, non-violent crime so severely punished? Of course he deserves a punishment but maybe not that much?

usefulcat
1 replies
1h10m

If steal $1000 from you, how much time should I serve? A year?

If I steal $1000 each from thousands of people, how much time should I serve then?

codedokode
0 replies
33m

If you make a scammy-looking cryptoexchange and promise I will get rich if I invest, you won't be able to steal a single cent. Only dumb people can believe that you can buy cryptocurrency and get rich without doing nothing.

notatoad
0 replies
1h15m

small

in what world is stealing ~$8bn a "small" crime?

nabla9
0 replies
1h6m

As the article says, it sends important message. And he does not serve 25 years.

I don't know how it is the US, but in Finland people get relatively longer sentences for financial crimes because long sentences have inhibitory effect for money crimes.

Most violent crimes happen without premeditation by people without impulse control and longer sentences don't actually reduce crime. White collar criminals weigh the costs and benefits and do their crimes in cold blood after long time of planning.

kstrauser
0 replies
1h12m

"Stole" is the word you're looking for. He stole their money. Lots of it.

judah
0 replies
1h10m

It is not like he was robbing poor people

A crime is not less of a crime based on the economic status of the victims. And raising rent or utilities is not a crime.

neilv
5 replies
1h32m

There's still a lot more 'crypto' scammers to go.

m3kw9
3 replies
1h28m

Crypto doesn’t need quotes

neilv
1 replies
1h18m

Before the Bitcoin et al. scamming, some people said "crypto" to abbreviate terms like cryptography and cryptographic protocol. Scammer bros appropriated "crypto", and made it dirty.

FabHK
0 replies
1h17m

True; unfortunately, that battle is lost.

segasaturn
0 replies
1h21m

I've seen people in the cryptography space use airquotes when referring to cryptocurrency to show their contempt for what they see as a scammy riff on their very serious and important work.

ecommerceguy
0 replies
1h20m

Tether.

jimberlage
5 replies
2h28m

If he’s eligible for parole at 1/3 of a 25 year sentence, he will spend anywhere from between 8 years, 4 months in prison or 25 years. That would make him somewhere between 40 and 57 when he gets out.

dragonwriter
0 replies
2h22m

That's from 1984, federal parole was abolished in 1987 (though people sentenced before 1987, IIRC, remain eligible according to the rules in place at the time.)

SBF was sentenced somewhat after 1987, so those rules don't apply to him.

jihadjihad
0 replies
2h25m

This is a federal sentence, so there is no parole. The most time off you can get in the federal system for good behavior is 54 days per year of sentence, so less than 4 years off for SBF's 25-year sentence.

jherskovic
0 replies
2h27m

No parole in the Federal system. There's (some) time off for good behavior.

dragonwriter
0 replies
2h23m

If he’s eligible for parole at 1/3 of a 25 year sentence

He is not; there is no federal parole (for people sentenced ib the last ~37 years.) There is “good conduct time” that can reduce time served to not less than ~85% of the time sentenced, so around 21 years minimum.

Minor49er
5 replies
2h27m

Why does the title on Hacker News have "SBF" while the article title has his full name?

zozbot234
0 replies
1h53m

Scam. Bankrupt. Fraud.

vitiral
0 replies
2h20m

Because we all know who SBF is by now

misiti3780
0 replies
2h25m

If I could edit it, I would fix it.

gizajob
0 replies
2h16m

Hacker handles for hacker fraudsters.

dang
0 replies
2h0m

Maybe the submitter was typing it out?

We've fixed it now.

adamtaylor_13
4 replies
2h10m

It blows my mind that we let sex offenders off for less. Is it just me or does that seem backwards?

Brian Peck got 16 months of prison and it seems to be that he caused a lot more harm to society than ol SBF here.

sneak
1 replies
2h2m

Yes, it is extremely backwards. The prison system in the US (like vehicle and environmental regulations in the US) exemplifies how little the culture there values human lives and lifespan.

rootusrootus
0 replies
1h1m

A plausible alternative is that the culture in the US puts considerably more value on the lives of the victims and assigns nearly zero value to the life of the criminal. Arguing that people should "please think of the criminals" is a non-starter.

themaninthedark
0 replies
1h46m

Brian Peck was unfortunately allowed to plead "No Contest" rather then being brought to trial or pleading guilty.

I can't find the case but he was also probably charged by the state rather than the Feds.

rootusrootus
0 replies
1h4m

Legally, Brian Peck injured two victims. SBF arguably injured far more than that (especially if you assign even partial responsibility for the suicides of people he victimized).

JumpinJack_Cash
4 replies
2h14m

How much did Jordan Belfort get?

Elizabeth Holmes?

Mt.Gox guy?

25 years is an exageration to be honest, there was never criminal intent, if anything there was too much belief in their creature, less like Madoff and more like the Long Term Capital Management guys. I don't remember them serving a single day in jail.

It goes to show that judges and prosecutors are just trophy hunters for media attention these days, as proven by the 1000s of proceedings against Donald Trump which costed millions of dollars and recovered exactly 0 dollars.

In any event this goes to show that if you are on the spectrum and can't empathize you should RUN at the first sign of things going south. This guy was in the Bahamas too, from there you can reach Cuba with an Inflatable Rib with a 40hp motor, South America too, St. Kitts and Nevis too which doesn't have an extradition treaty and is the place that many real criminals call home.

unregistereddev
0 replies
1h28m

I don't know if your questions are rhetorical, but they are easy to answer so I looked them up for you. These are only the prison sentences and do not include court-mandated restitution.

Jordan Belfort: 4 years (served 22 months)

Elizabeth Holmes: 11 years

Mt. Gox guy: I do not know which guy you refer to. Two Russian men were indicted for the actual Mt Gox hack. Separately Mark Karpeles was sentenced to 2 1/2 years, suspended sentence, in Japan - but only for record tampering. He was found not guilty of embezzlement. This entire saga seems very very far removed from what SBF did.

Bernie Madoff: 150 years

stephenitis
0 replies
2h4m

"Never any criminal intent"

Sounds like someone didn't follow this case closely enough

charonn0
0 replies
1h54m

Belfort cooperated with the FBI and got 4 years.

Holmes got 11 years.

The Mt. Gox guy was prosecuted in Japan.

TrackerFF
0 replies
1h56m

Hopefully it will scare / prevent others.

The crypto space is rife with scams, so it's good to finally see some real sentencing.

rustcleaner
3 replies
1h29m

10 years is a life sentence, anything more is satisfying bloodlust in voters to keep the magick trick of civilization afloat.

This human impulse is why aliens don't visit. We're too barbaric to ourselves! xD

s3r3nity
1 replies
1h23m

Actions have consequences.

Billions of dollars of fraud that took years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees to prove should have a sentence that is a strong deterrent to future crime probabilities.

rustcleaner
0 replies
23m

The next SBF will not think about SBF even if he knows about SBF. Deterrence Theory is back-justification to make yourself feel good about the crime that is going to happen to SBF for a quarter century just like millions of others today. This isn't living in a Motel 6 like apartment working at an Amazon warehouse for 25 years never making enough to save a dime despite putting in 50+ hours on average, with no economic hope of escape (a hell by most people's standards here); this is locking him up like an animal in abysmal conditions that would never pass public scrutiny if we designed zoo enclosures as such!

If we continue to run prisons the way we do in America, all sentencing needs to go through a strong base log function, and be strictly concurrent.

JumpCrisscross
0 replies
1h22m

10 years is a life sentence, anything more is satisfying bloodlust

Retribution is a valid component of justice. But I’d argue, in the case of a fraudster, incapacitation is of equal concern.

birracerveza
3 replies
2h21m

I wonder how many of those will actually be served... one way or the other.

arrowsmith
1 replies
2h6m

Wouldn't that make 85% the minimum, not the average?

MichaelRo
3 replies
46m

25 years seems excessive. Funk, for murder they get 10 years in Sweden. Yes, fraud is bad but he didn't kill nobody. I think 5 years would have had been enough.

tsimionescu
0 replies
30m

Fraud affects huge amounts of people, and is always premeditated. Murdering one person is much more excusable than defrauding hundreds of thousands.

s_dev
0 replies
38m

Three suicides make this crime a bit more violent than you give it credit for. Not to mention absolute destruction of 00s if not 000s of lives.

caturopath
0 replies
36m

You could also think of it as 11 minutes each for defrauding each of 1.2MM people. I don't know whether either of those sentences are good ones, but there does come a point at which a narrow violent crime should be punished less than a huge non-violent one. FEMA uses about 7.5MM for a human life for certain cost-benefit analyses (much lower values are used in many of the countries where most FTX customers lived): is there a sense in which doing a billion dollars of damage is in certain ways comparable to 130 killings? Surely some people who lost money would have used that money in part to save someone's life.

9front
3 replies
1h45m

SBF was a top political donor in Washington. I expect a pardon by the end of this year.

politician
0 replies
1h38m

It's an election year for a first term incumbent, there is no chance of a pardon.

jes5199
0 replies
1h32m

he _was_ a donor. he's not likely to be a donor in the future. so why bother?

danpalmer
0 replies
1h41m

I think that would be a hugely unpopular move, for essentially no benefit (he doesn't have any more money to donate), and would be one hell of an unforced error on the part of the democratic campaign.

k8svet
2 replies
1h38m

I met a nice Israeli filmography couple (somewhat known in Israel, I think) in Tulum last summer. After conducting important business, they were telling me about how they were vacating on the back of a nice windfall -- they got paid upfront for an editting/production job which was unprecedented and generous. Implications of lots of money and some "image rehabilitation". They're acting a bit coy about it, and I'm feeling perfectly fine to be nosy.

So they ask if I've ever heard of "S.B.F.". After my mouth fell open and I gasped for air a few times, and demanded some proof, I got to see a not-public interview of SBF. Nothing particularly juicy, but still. I'm a nerd and I love gossip.

Apropos of nothing, other than the world is small, and weird; I guess.

ipnon
1 replies
1h19m

I propose the Bankman-Fried number: how many people you personally know who got rekt in the crypto crash of November 2022.

zoklet-enjoyer
0 replies
1h3m

I had somewhere between $10k and $20k in FTX. Took it all out when CZ started tweeting

dvektor
2 replies
1h19m

"Wow jeez! 'Only' ten years! That's not so bad, I think I could live with that, now I think I'm gonna go pull a huge scam! But damn, if he would have got 20 or 25 years, then I'd have to reconsider my carefully thought out decision to commit fraud" -- Nobody, Ever.

To most people, just the act of losing everything you have, losing your ability to provide for your family or yourself. Losing your reputation, your career and future career opportunities, is enough to deter them. Whether a crime will give you 10 years or 20 years, most people consider that to be so long, that it's more or less all the same. It feels like an eternity, and it feels like your life is over. So if they are going to take a risk, or make a stupid decision, then they are going to do it regardless. Not because they accept the risk, but because nobody ever believes they are ever going to get caught. They consider that as "my life is over anyway". And usually, it is. That's not the point of prison. If you are ever going to let people out, why not focus on making sure they don't come back. Punishing people by throwing them in cages with worse people, absolutely does not work. (note: I am speaking mostly about non-violent crimes, which make up 72% of the federal system)

sp332
0 replies
1h15m

This was directly addressed by the judge during the sentencing, so you might be interested in finding a recording or transcript.

ak_111
2 replies
2h26m

Is it possible he gets a pardon from Biden? Apparently Ross Ulbrecht who is arguably much more serious crime, was close to getting a pardon from Trump (he seriously discusses it with his advisors at least and expressed sympathy)

jakeinspace
0 replies
2h23m

No chance, it would be a very politically expensive pardon for no real benefit

dralley
0 replies
2h14m

No.

PhilipRoman
2 replies
19m

I sincerely wish every centralized exchange had their own SBF to burn them down. The negative impact of "investors" has been terrible for crypto. They've turned what should have been a trustless medium into a caricature of traditional banking with all of its downsides and none of the benefits. Whats the point of computing all the hashes if you end up handing your coins to some guy who pinky promises to pay them back at some point in the future with interest?

tommoor
0 replies
1m

That would be nice, but what are the other on-ramps from fiat that are usable for mainstream folks? (Genuinely asking)

freedomben
0 replies
16m

Without centralized exchanges, do you think crypto would ever really have become a thing? I like to think it would, and that we don't need exchanges, because I too have a strong dislike for exchanges (if not a hatred), but I'm a fairly technical user and even for me it's not exactly easy to be deep into crypto without exchanges. Particularly when it comes to exchanging dollars for coins.

spxneo
1 replies
18m

Been following SBF for a long time and this quote my local rabbi told me once comes to mind:

"spxneo, if you deceive people that demands to be deceived, you will be rich. if you are truthful with those people that demands to be deceived, you will become enemies. if you are truthful with people that demands truth, you will be friends but poor."

wolpoli
0 replies
8m

If you deceive people that that demands truth, do you become rich and become enemies?

sneak
1 replies
2h1m

I don’t think there is any crime whatsoever that imprisoning someone for more than ten years would be reasonable or productive.

If jailing someone for a decade doesn’t do it, nothing will.

It seems purely vindictive at some point. The justice system should not be vindictive.

FredPret
0 replies
1h59m

Either the justice system is at least a little vindictive, or the survivors of the crime will become so much more vindictive

kyleblarson
1 replies
1h6m

Over / under on him getting Epsteined?

Zambyte
0 replies
15m

Seems kind of unlikely that he has much dirt on anyone with power...?

gscott
1 replies
27m

The moral of the story is to always accept a plea deal if there is some chance of your being seen as guilty.

Zambyte
0 replies
17m

I think the moral of the story is to keep your fraud below the billions

gjvc
1 replies
2h27m

should have been hanged or given the chair

dang
0 replies
1h58m

Please don't do this here.

gamblor956
1 replies
2h27m

Considering the multitude of charges, this is actually pretty low. It appears he was sentenced to a less-than-full term for each of the charges, to be served sequentially (since if the sentences were served simultaneously, the total actual term would be much less than 25 years).

We'll know more in about an hour.

EDIT: Actually, the Verge has already reported:"The judge applied a 240-month sentence and a 60-month sentence to be served consecutively."

vkou
0 replies
2h10m

Given that all the crimes originated from pretty much the same offense, it would be highly surprising if the sentences weren't served simultaneously.

Gerlo
0 replies
1h37m

Dang. He certainly called it.

xrd
0 replies
1h0m

As other people have pointed out here, he has the possibility of getting out in 12.5 years.

That means he might miss his chance to have kids. Having your first kid at 38 is old, I should know.

That means, ironically, he will be prevented from self imposed financial ruin, which is to say, trying to raise children in the US, especially as someone who came from the opulence of the bay area. Can you imagine the cost of trying to keep up with the Joneses when those are your peers.

It seems like a fair punishment for him would actually be to force him to have kids and have to work as a janitor in silicon valley until they graduate from community college. That would really be teaching him to experience the financial ruin he imposed on others.

</sarcasm>

wnevets
0 replies
2h7m

Never steal money from the rich.

user3939382
0 replies
25m

When money and politics is involved at this scale I believe nothing I read and half of what I see.

uejfiweun
0 replies
1h23m

Lol. "My useful life is over," he says. As if there was anything useful about setting up a fraudulent exchange to steal billions of dollars so he could go play animal house with Caroline in his penthouse.

thr0waway001
0 replies
2h25m

He shoulda watched the end of the Boiler Room.

sidcool
0 replies
30m

Harsh sentence. What could possibly have helped reduce it?

nightowl_games
0 replies
2h29m

Honestly 25 years seems like way too long to me.

m3kw9
0 replies
1h22m

SBFs dream scenario: With the emergence of ASI which causes an era of super abundance and without a need for economics, everyone forgives the financial crime and SBF goes free.

gigatexal
0 replies
11m

Should have got 50+ years

easyThrowaway
0 replies
2h1m

Am I the only one who feels like they basically got a patsy and whoever was actually running the con while he was playing LoL during meetings got away scot-free?

coolThingsFirst
0 replies
36m

Am i dreaming, Americans clarify is there like a catch that he’ll be out in 2.

coldtea
0 replies
3m

Judge Lewis Kaplan, just before announcing Bankman-Fried's 25-year sentence, said there was a risk "that this man will be in a position to do something very bad in the future, and it's not a trivial risk."

I call bullshit. Typical punitive justice reasoning. He might had done fraud, but it's hardly a risk that he "will be in a position to do something very bad in the future".

btbuildem
0 replies
1h11m

Now do all the other ponzi scheme bros, including 80% of the insider traders in Congress

bowsamic
0 replies
1h43m

I can't believe how many people here are defending him to be honest

bdcravens
0 replies
57m

I can't help but think it's ironic that he was sentenced while BTC is near its ATH.

Crosseye_Jack
0 replies
58m

Less than he should have gotten, but more than I thought he would get!

11101010001100
0 replies
2h0m

Now we all get to play judge! 25 going once twice sold.