Hacker News Reader

Comment by ivraatiems | Hacker News Reader

How anyone could look at this man's behavior over the last few weeks and not think he was on a fast track to a federal penitentiary is beyond me.

A word to the unwise: If you have done something, anything, that you have a credible reason to believe the United States government thinks is illegal, shut up. Do not do any of the following:

* Go on a podcast and talk about it

* Go on a Twitter livestream and talk about it

* Tweet about it

* Answer questions from those you committed the crime against about it

* Speak to journalists about it

Instead, shut up. Shut up shut up shut up shut up. Your defense attorneys and your ankle will thank you.

It does not matter whether it was an honest mistake or not. It does not matter whether you agree, philosophically, that it ought to be illegal. It does not matter whether Congress wants to talk to you about it first. It doesn't matter whether you've lived a life so sheltered and privileged that you cannot conceive of the idea that anyone from the government might be out to get you.

Imagine the US Justice Department as an extremely patient, extremely hungry predator, and yourself as a delicious, plump prey animal with two broken legs hiding behind a rock. Anything you do or say to anybody except your lawyer will be used against you. So shut up.

View on HN

> How anyone could look at this man's behavior over the last few weeks and not think he was on a fast track to a federal penitentiary is beyond me

Seeing how thoroughly he convinced people that he had political influence, and given his general lack of awareness, I’m willing to give merit to his believing he was immune. Similar to how people outside securities think insider trading is more rampant than it is, insider trade in the most obnoxiously obvious way, and then promptly get caught.

>Seeing how thoroughly he convinced people that he had political influence

We’ve gotten tot he point where we’ve gone way too far off the deep end when it comes to this narrative around political influence. the collective imagination seems to have risen to comic book level proportions.

All people saw was SBF gave a bunch of money and thought, “he must have a ton of influence”. Meanwhile, in my state, he gave $11 million to a democratic candidate who lost in the primary and was transparently an absolute joke of a candidate.

His donations to Democrats accounted for 0.025% of all the money Democrats spent on the midterm election last month. Anyone who genuinely believed that can buy you a get out of jail free card for billions of dollars in fraud should seriously re-evaluate how they think the world works.

I almost called BS on your statistic, but a simple Google search shows that this year's midterm elections saw spending of up to $16.7 billion [1], so it appears to be true. As a non-US citizen, the amount of money in US politics shreds my mind...what are they even spending it on? Ads? Campaign outreaches? How much do these things cost?

If it's how it is in my weird African country (Nigeria), I'll wager that most of the money is spent on advertisements and clueless campaign managers and staff enjoying the grift. But then, I understand; the U.S. is a really rich country with a high percentage of politically-active citizens, so they put their money where their mouth is.

1- https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/03/2022-midterm-election-spendi...

It’s important to keep in mind how much more expensive it is to buy ads in major US media markets. It’s not difficult to spend tens of millions of dollars just buying television ads for a few weeks during campaign season.

Single ads are actually pretty cheap. Full campaigns that are designed to reduce or eliminate opportunities for your competitors to also advertise on the same station are expensive.

Mostly ads, there's a lot of staff too, but the typical campaign salary is pretty paltry and reporting laws limit opportunities for grift.

Consumerism. If you don't roll out a full blown corporate propaganda machine you aren't going anywhere.

You're not wrong, but on the other hand... the limit on direct contributions to federal campaigns is $5800. I can tell you from personal experience that this is enough to get a meeting with any senator or congressman except the most senior leadership (their price is about 10x more). So for about $3-4M/yr you can have every incumbent senator and representative on speed dial. They won't necessarily do your bidding, but they will return your calls.

Is this really true? How does it actually work? You donate $5800 then give them a call and ask for a meeting? I assumed that would take a lot more.

If you give them $5800 they will start calling you to ask for more money. If it's a Congressman they will usually call you themselves. If it's a Senator they might call you personally, or they might have their campaign manager call. But from there it's pretty easy to get a meeting if you want one.

You don't even have to give $5800 in most cases. $1k is plenty to get the attention of junior congressmen and even some less well known senators.

Just to put all this in perspective, it's actually possible to get meetings with these people without giving them money, especially if you're a constituent. But the more money you give, the higher you move up in the priority queue, and it doesn't take much to move to the front of the line.

Just seconding everything you are saying. We dabbled in political contributions at my workplace for a project and it was easy to get a meeting with just about anyone (except our Senators who we didn't need to try) as long as we were flexible with scheduling.

It’s also important to note that a part of a politicians job is to meet with constituents, so getting a meeting is not per se nefarious. The issue is about how much more access you get if you are a big donor.

That's right. Also worth noting that if you want to influence policy (as opposed to getting personal favors) it is quite effective to call their office and speak to staffer, or write a letter. Every call and letter is assumed to represent the views of hundreds of people who couldn't be bothered to call or write. You don't have to be long-winded because the only result of your action will be that a staffer puts a tally mark on a sheet of paper, but the results of those tallies can occasionally move the needle on votes.

They will contact you.

Can all the people who claimed SBF would never be arrested because of the corruption of media, establishment and Democrats please ask themselves how many other false things they believe because of their tribe's ideology?

No, because there's always another theory that you can jump to when your prior assumptions fail you.

Here's an easy one: "He was only arrested because he was going to reveal damning truth in today's Congressional hearing."

Even if the DOJ, Congress, and SBF all swear until they are black and blue that it wasn't the reason for the timing of the arrest, the theory can change to "Of course they would say that, they are all in on the deep state conspiracy."

The beautiful thing about the world is that there is an unlimited number of unconfirmable and unrefutable possibilities and could-have-beens that can be used to support any idea - sensible, or silly.

Surely a meager bit of attention paid to fear/disgust-based politics [now don't project here folks ;)], would dissuade you from that notion. There's always a deeper conspiracy to double down with. Or outright lies. Gish galloping, etc.

He donated almost 1bn - that is known of. The Democrats spent about 5bn in the whole election. Do you have a source for your numbers?

What’s your source for the $1bn?

Axios wrote that he spent $37 million on the midterms:

https://www.axios.com/2022/11/15/ftz-crypto-bankman-fried-de...

I think that given SBF’s assertion that he donated an equal amount of dark money to Republicans, it would be wise to mention the amount of money they spent as well. Otherwise you risk giving the impression that this problem is limited to a single party.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/30/ftx-billi...

I also think the 1 billion figure is inaccurate. In May, SBF said that he could spend a billion between now and 2024. However, he backed away from that quote in October:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/14/sam-bankman-fried-backtracks...

Elon Musk later said that SBF “probably” donated over 1 billion, without providing any supporting evidence. I can’t prove that he’s thinking of the May statement but it seems plausible if not certain. Either way, Elon Musk’s guesses are not proof of anything.

I’m glad you asked for sources. It’s always important to provide them.

Are you counting PACs?

> We’ve gotten tot he point where we’ve gone way too far off the deep end when it comes to this narrative around political influence. the collective imagination seems to have risen to comic book level proportions.

Seriously. If I had a nickel for every time someone had posted on HN "SBF is immune because he donated a lot of money to Democrats" I'd have… well, a lot of nickels.

Madoff donated a lot of money to Democrats too and it didn't help him one bit.

He was the #2 donor behind Soros to Democratic candidates. It's not every day that the number two gets indicted for a multi-billion dollar fraud. It is good to see questions around influence arise.

Questions around influence are good, but what I’m referring to is different.

There were numerous posts on this forum who were adamant that nothing would happen to SBF because they were certain that he had the Democratic Party bought and paid for. It’s the certainty that I’m calling out here (“comic book level), not the skepticism.

> It is good to see questions around influence arise.

If he hadn't gotten indicted in, like, a couple of years, then sure. But people were assuming he wouldn't be indicted days after FTX collapsed.

This is accurate for non-dark money.

Interestingly, if we take SBF at his word that he donated equally to Republicans in dark money, he would be the fifth largest donor to Republican candidates.

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/3720141-here-are-the...

Why on earth would you believe anything he says without evidence?

What's particularly stupid is most of the time that people are going off about how some company or person gave a bunch of money and that is obviously why Congress passed the bill that company or person supported, the companies or people that opposed the bill also gave a ton of money to the same members of Congress that the first company or person did.

Also, often those companies on both sides of the bill donated a lot to the members of Congress that supported the bill and those that opposed the bill.

So why do they donate all that money?

Do we have some examples of people who have amassed great real or perceived fortunes (and power) that have not become drunk on it?

Musk on stage with Chapelle last night, Elizabeth Holmes, or SBF’s whole schtick, who are the ones who have kept their feet on the ground?

What are the attributes of these others who don’t lose themselves in fawning attention and (sometimes short-lived) mountains of capital?

There are so many people who have obtained fortunes and not become drunk on that.

The person who built a liquor store and grew into 20 stores across the city. People who started consulting companies. That immigrant family who scraped and scraped for decades while living above their restaurant. The list is endless, especially compared to the much shorter list of crypto criminals who are drunk on their illusory power and fame, which seems to always disappear overnight.

Any fool can make a fortune; it takes a person of brains to hold onto it.

Liquor stores and consulting companies don't stack up to the “ great fortunes" gp was asking about.

Except "great fortunes" isn't what gp wrote. GP wrote, "great real or perceived fortunes". Besides, how do you know what fortunes people have made with their liquor stores or consulting companies?

Ross Perot was a billionaire from consulting, before being a billionaire was a thing. Plus he was a genuinely good person.

That imaginary liquor store owner, even as an imaginary person, has more of a fortune than SBF at this point.

> There are so many people who have obtained fortunes and not become drunk on that.

Both my perception and my experience from knowing several extremely wealthy 'self-made' people is that the vast majority are fairly quiet, prudent, bright and hard-working people who've managed to make (mostly) good long-term decisions and continue doing so consistently over time. I suspect the "crazy, playboy billionaire" stereotype is based more on high-visibility outliers rather than the majority. Outlandish, eccentric and/or entitled behavior makes for good stories and click fodder while typical long-term value-building behaviors are pretty boring.

This is the central theme of the book "The Millionaire Next Door".

Money really is wasted on some people

See some videos on YouTube of Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger conducting Berkshire's annual shareholder meetings. It will help.

Quick link to 2022: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E_seuUbfUGw

Although I get the impression a large part of Buffet's normalcy is because he's chosen to spend his time making money for other people.

If you're ridiculously rich... you could do worse than thinking of common people as your boss, for perspective.

I would argue most do especially those who accrue it over time. Most power isn't in the broad open nor does attract attention necessarily (unless thats where it draws its source of power). It's those who attain it (power/money) in very short order that have significant difficulty adjusting to their change in circumstances.

You are only pointing to the very few who couldn't handle it or are drawn to attention.

If the comparison point is SBF, then pg exceeds this bar. He doesn’t flaunt it, but it’s there.

Power is hard to measure, but in this context it seems reasonable to include lots of founders in the list. The Collison brothers, sama, and Brian Armstrong, to name a few. They’re all in charge of fortunes that normal people can only dream of.

I don’t think any of them have made critical errors. And it’s arguable whether Musk has, but time will tell.

Warren Buffet? Maybe Bill Gates? Queen Elizabeth II?

I don't think QE2 amassed her wealth and power. She was, officially, given it by God.

Gates seems to be caught up in Epstein stuff. Maybe. So I’m not sure where he stands. He does know when to shut his pie hole though.

The only thing he has done that I am aware of is become Farmer Gates in the retirement years.

It runs in his family.

While not popular here, I would say Bezos has done a relatively good job of keeping his head amongst madness.

It IS pretty damning that Bezos (and Gates IMO) are the ones held up as "not letting the wealth and power change you". Bezos literally flew in a giant cock-rocket wearing a cowboy hat.

Sure that is great comedy fodder, but it isn't really at the same level of the others.

The popular wisdom is Amazon got into the video business entirely so Bezos could get dates with more actresses.

That may be a popular wisdom but it doesn't make sense. You really think a multi-billionaire who is moderately good-looking couldn't get a date? With literally anyone?

Some possibilities are Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates ex-wives (though, maybe they don’t count as amasssing their fortunes), um…

Jeff Bezos: Hey MacKenzie, let's quit our great jobs at DE Shaw, move across the country to Seattle, and start an online bookstore! [In 1994!]

By saying yes, she was, in effect, Amazon's first investor, and worked there in the early days. The value of positive support from family cannot be underestimated (see also Jeff Bezos' parents' early investment in the company).

Rockefeller avoided the press entirely (to his detriment really) until well after he'd retired.

Probably the hundreds of billionaires you’ve never heard of.

I can well imagine there being a selection bias towards the ones who want to build a cult of personality being the only ones that "make news".

Warren Buffett might be one example

Yes, you've likely never heard of them: https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/

I have no clue who these people are:

Hank & Doug Meijer

Tom & Judy Love

Stewart & Lynda Resnick

Andrew & Peggy Cherng

In fact the list of ones I recognize is tiny compared to the whole list.

Some of them don't even have pictures, but they're all billionaires. And yes, I consider even a single billion to be a great, real fortune. Most people will never crack a million.

Elon on a comedian's show is not not having your feet on the ground...

You realize that he's not asking to go on the show, people are asking him to come on the show. Your questions should be directed at Dave Chappele.

Yeah, and he was also in a state where the same strategy kept working again and again, so he may have been convinced it's a fundamental aspect of reality.

Any time SBF ran into trouble, he could just raise another round of financing, or borrow against artificial valuations, or "smooth things over" with the right people.

Once that happens enough, I imagine a lot of people would start to feel some cosmic entitlement to it, like that's just how it is, the FTT tokens must be worth $24 each, it's only a matter of "getting liquidity"[1], you can always raise more money, you can always call in a favor, you can always borrow against what you think the assets are worth, there's no reason to hold customer assets in their original form.

Heck, even to the very last days, when his attorneys and CFO were telling him he had to declare bankruptcy, he adamantly insisted that new funding was just about to come through -- and even that he got the offer moments after declaring -- but, of course, he can't say who, or under what terms, even why they would invest. [2]

Personally, I always try to maintain a frame of "these good times don't have to last, they can go away at any moment, so make sure you're ready for if/when that happens". But maybe I'd falter too, in the same position.

[1] A frame even informed observers buy into! Earlier comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33539326

[2] ctrl-f for "Mr. Bankman-Fried was also frustrated.": https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/technology/sam-bankman-fr...

Oh, I believe he believed it. I just can't imagine an impartial observer from outside his lil universe believing it.

I think this is a bit far fetched. He was the scion of famous law professors. He grew up around the law. To think he didn’t understand what the general public does about the law takes a special kind of … assumption that directly contradicts the obvious facts. He very likely knows more about the law than anyone on here. How could he not?

> He very likely knows more about the law than anyone on here. How could he not?

There are actual lawyers on HN. I don't think proximity to lawyers makes one as knowledgeable as an actual one.

Lawyer up and shut up is the most basic advice. Ever.

I know a dev who is married to a lawyer. He knows enough not to offer an opinion.

My father sold cars most of his adult life, and certainly throughout all the time we shared together until his death. He was very good at it. And yet I know fuck all about selling cars or cars in general. Nada. Nothing. I didn't even learn to drive until I was in my thirties. "X's parents are in profession Y" hardly means anything.

Not even “here’s how to negotiate and get a good deal on a used car”? Sorry to hear, that’s the kind of stuff a parent should pass on if they know.

My father is a civil engineer. That doesn't qualify me to build a bridge.

Sure. But you probably know a few basics about bridges. That’s the overarching point - a basic lawyer thing is if you are ever in trouble, don’t talk to anyone: cops, media, etc. so it’s curious why he decided to anyway.

The easy answer is that he was zooted to the gills on ADHD meds. There might be others too.

I think you meant to say "That’s the overarching pont".

Now that pun is going too far.

don't worry, we'll cross that off when we get to it.

TBH, a little knowledge is worse than no knowledge. Fewer chances to overestimate your own understanding in the later case.

Has anybody seen any evidence whatsoever from SBF in any of his dealings at FTX or any of his dealings in the downfall of FTX that evinces any sort of legal savvy whatsoever? My parents are musicians. I'm not.

> He very likely knows more about the law than anyone on here. How could he not?

The answer is simple, through a lack of knowledge. Knowledge of the law is not genetically inherited.

The work of a famous law professor is very different from the work of a defense lawyer, and generally involves very little interaction with the business end of the justice system.

If he's committed crimes, he almost certainly doesn't listen to his parents, since lawyers by training are risk adverse, and tend to tell you not to do things that can land you in jail.

So if you believe he's committed crimes, then it doesn't become far fetched to imagine that he'd continue to not listen to his parents on matters of criminal defense.

Your theory of the genetic transmission of legal knowledge is an interesting one. We await your research for further study.

I don’t think the poster is proposing genetic transmission. Rather it’s fairly common for parents to share “insider knowledge” they have with their kids to help them be successful. But this does not always happen.

Mind the old aphorism: >The Cobblers kids have no shoes.

Not everyone brings work home with them, or forces their kids down that path.

> He very likely knows more about the law than anyone on here. How could he not?

Lawyers and judges break the law, sometimes intentionally out of arrogance derived from how adeptly they believe they can skirt it because of their knowledge and position.

> How could he not?

Well, he’s not a lawyer, for one…

Reminds me of someone or other who committed voting fraud, to prove that it's easy to get away with committing voting fraud, and immediately got caught.

I don't pity SBF, but this advice is important for innocent citizens. It's unfortunate that anything you say to law enforcement can be used against you - but none of it can be used for you. A police officer can testify against you, but if they try to support you it will be dismissed as "hearsay".

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

obligatory “don’t talk to the police” link.

Lawyer here. I give this guy’s book out to anyone I care about. Friends, family. I even highlight the bit at the end with the practical advice. Everyone needs to know this.

The friendliest police officer in the world is not your friend

It all depends. For a speeding ticket, giving your info to the police tends to make it easier, although you do not have to answer his questions.

The lawyer mentions this in his talk.

OTOH, as a former public defender I have no problems talking with the police.

The police aren't your friend. They're also not your enemy.

Talking to the police as part of an investigation doesn't make you a suspect. Seriously, how do people think criminal investigations are done? Talking to witnesses is a huge part of investigating. People very rarely finger themselves as potential suspects; it's almost always the other witnesses who identify them as suspects.

If you're worried that you've done something wrong, talk to a lawyer first. 99.9% of the time, they'll tell you it's fine. Of course, if you tell the police you need to talk to your lawyer first, they'll want to know why you think you need a lawyer; if I were your lawyer, that's the first thing I'd wonder too. And if you weren't considered a potential suspect before you definitely will be on their short list after.

I can see why someone familiar with the law would be comfortable speaking with the police, but it's tough for a lay person to know if they are being lied to or will inadvertantly say something seemingly benign that causes them grief. Given that police are allowed to lie with impunity and might become your enemy, it's almost all downside for oneself to speak to them.

If cops were obligated to be honest in more respects I would be more willing to open up, but of course they don't want any restrictions in that area. Cops in the US want to be able to lie whenever it's convenient and also have everyone trust them, but that's not a very fair bargain for the general public.

If the police are asking you questions, they're not lying to you...they're just asking questions.

And if the police say something seemingly benign that causes you grief, you can look forward to a large-ish settlement to make up for your troubles.

People on HN rarely interact with the police and it seems they have an unrealistic, media-driven perception of how cops actually act. For point of reference, it's the same as how non-techies assume that every tech employee can hack their way into a bank account or rig together a go-kart from spare parts.

they’re not .. not lying to you, either. Maybe!

https://reischlawfirm.com/police-allowed-to-lie/

That's mostly FUD from a criminal defense firm trying to scare people into hiring them.

Cops are not as bad as people think they are. Cops behaving badly (in the U.S.) is news because it is the exception and not the norm.

~30% of wrongful convictions is just rounding error, right?

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/detailli...

Read your own source. Because, by your logic, SBF being a con artist means that all programmers are con artists.

30% These convictions aren't the result of people talking to the police and then getting screwed over. The overwhelming majority of them are the result of cross-racial witness identifications.

To put it bluntly: most wrongful convictions are due to racism on the part of prosecution witnesses.

I'm impressed it took a whole 33 minutes for this to be linked!

I'm surprised this classic video is 10+ years old but has only 18M views.

edit: Saw that the professor, James Duane [0], has his own Wikipedia page, almost entirely on the popularity of the Youtube lecture. Even more surprising, his Talk page seems to be free of debate over Duane's notability. Pretty impressive for a single videoed lecture!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Duane_(professor)

Should be shown in elementary schools as part of the curriculum.

But then youd be disrupting the school-to-prison pipeline![1]

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-to-prison_pipeline

I was shown it in high-school by a particularly good social studies teacher.

Yes but they always miss Part 2 :-)

"Don't Talk to the Police Part 2" - https://youtu.be/tIt-l2YmH8M

> It's unfortunate that anything you say to law enforcement can be used against you - but none of it can be used for you.

Is it really unfortunate? There is simply an implicit assumption that humans avoid incriminating themselves when possible but are very quick to offer excuses. That seems to align pretty well with my experience. Therefore, we assume that if someone says something contrary to their own interest is is more likely to be true.

>Is it really unfortunate?

Yes; the system should not be biased towards guilt.

This is arguably biased towards justice, not guilt.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio

If an officer testified in support of you about what he witnessed, why would that be hearsay?

IANAL.

But it's unlikely the Police officer actually "witnessed" anything that'll help you.

If you tell police officer you did something bad, it's essentially a confession and reported as such.

If you tell police officer you did something good, it's hearsay - you told it to officer who told it to judge & jury.

Then there's jurisdictional details as to their role and rules of evidence etc that will vary from country to country.

But it's a shocking revelation to most people that Police cannot effectively help you in court. That's not their role.

-----------------------

Edit: Found it - federal rule of evidence 801(d)(2)(a) - Opposing Party Statement

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/federal_rules_o...

There are plenty of exceptions to the hearsay rule, though; there are also times when something that seems like it’s hearsay isn’t. Exception: maybe you made the statement to the cop while you were covered in blood and blubbering about something you had witnessed, making it an excited utterance. Or maybe your lawyer is eliciting the statement from the cop not to suggest to the jury that it’s true, but to show you had no motive, making it fall outside of the hearsay rule.

Police have a responsibility to testify truthfully under oath, within the constraints of the rules on hearsay. But that doesn’t mean they are forbidden from saying anything in your favor, no matter what.

Also if a cop lies hard to say who is right. But if you never talked to a cop unless your lawyer was present with recording equipment, etc. well, that’s a much more solid defense.

Because hearsay is an out-of-court statement, but there are exceptions, including a statement against the person's interest. FRE 804(b)(3).*

In other words, if you try to introduce an out-of-court statement that supports your case, it's hearsay; if the statement is against your interest, it's allowable.

Of course there are other exceptions and nuances, but this is the jist of it.

* https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-804/

But it’s not like that acts as a filter against anything in your interest, since it would still come out on cross, right? I tried to illustrate with my comment here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33973220

At first, that sounds weird. Then I read the link you've provided. Now I understand how it makes perfect sense. Thanks for the explainer.

If you tell a police officer that you did a crime, then your words are admissible as evidence against you. If you tell a police officer that you did not commit a crime, you can't have the police officer testify in your defense that you told him that you did not commit the crime.

Witnessing things is a completely different matter.

"If you tell a police officer that you did a crime, then your words are admissible as evidence against you."

This is because the people who wrote the evidence rules believe nobody would admit to a crime unless they are guilty. So it's a hearsay exception.

The exception isn't meant to be a sinister trick to treat you unfairly, it's meant to lead to the right people going to jail and the right people not going to jail.

Ehhh that's still misleading. It makes it sound like when the officer testifies about your statements, it goes through a magical filter in which only the inculpatory(is that the word?) stuff can come in, but not the exculpatory. Like...

During Mirandized interrogation:

Doe: "I grabbed her wrists after she picked up a knife to attack me."

In court:

Prosecutor: "What, if anything, did you learn from questioning Mr. Doe?"

Officer: "He said he grabbed her wrists."

Defense attorney on cross-examination: "In what context did Mr. Doe grab her wrists?"

Officer: "After she picked up a kni--"

Prosecutor: "Objection! Hearsay!"

Judge: "Sustained. Jury will disregard anything about the accuser picking up a knife. Wrist grabbing stuff is fine."

^Not remotely how it works, at all, but what you might falsely believe from being told "your words are admissible against you, not for you".

Talking to the "regular" police and talking to a federal investigator are two completely different things. At the federal level they have "false or misleading statements"[0] which is a felony with a five year max. People have been convicted and done prison time on this alone based on nothing other than the notes and testimony from a federal investigator. At the state level probably the best they have is "obstruction of justice"[1] which requires things like physically interfering with the police or destroying evidence and even those actions have lesser penalties than "false or misleading statements".

I have a friend who is a federal criminal investigator and his advice when/if the feds show up is to say nothing other than "Do you have a business card? Someone will be in touch." and get a lawyer ASAP.

[0] - https://www.iannfriedman.com/blog/2019/april/federal-charges...

[1] - https://www.pallegarlawfirm.com/obstructing-justice-in-flori...

It's hearsay 101 - an out of court statement by someone who didn't say it, being offered for the truth of the statement. it's not hearsay when you say it to the officer because that is a party admission.

Because one is hearsay and one is a party admission. This is basic evidence law.

There are times when it doesn’t apply. But yes, for most people in most situations, as most of us know, you don’t talk. It’s called the fifth amendment. School children learn about it in civics class.

Do we even have civics in most schools anymore?

Yes.

Let me guess: you live in the suburbs, or your kids go to a private school, or you are relying on your past.

I live in Illinois, where it's a statewide requirement for graduation.

He didn’t speak to the police though. Just to randos with podcasts in the crypto sphere

People keep saying this, but honestly, does anyone really think it makes one iota of difference?

Fact is that there is a huge paper trail of SBF's malfeasance, nevermind the fact that his co-conspirators appear to be turning against him. If anything, his interviews seemed to be his attempt to argue for negligence over malice in his case.

Yes, SBF is going to prison for a long time. No, I don't think anyone has made a viable argument that his interviews over the past few weeks are likely to make his sentence worse.

Yes it has made a difference. In white-collar crimes, prosecutors have to prove intent. That means they have to somehow find evidence that the defendant meant to do various things improperly. SBF has literally given interviews where he has stated the required intent for some of the crimes.

As an unrelated aside, note that this is also a way of punishing lower classes of people more severely. If you shoplift, prosecutors don't have to prove you meant to do that rather than just accidentally failing to pay. Generally laws for intent are for people that legislators can identify with, and there is no intent requirement for people legislators don't personally identify with.

> SBF has literally given interviews where he has stated the required intent for some of the crimes.

Do you have examples of what you are referring to? As you say, intent matters here. The vast majority of quotes I've seen from his interviews are along the lines of "I suck at accounting", but that he didn't intend to steal funds.

But again, the other reason I don't think it matters is that there were plenty of other recorded examples that do show intent, e.g. cases where SBF was lying on Twitter specifically to try to cover his tracks: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33632472

At least under CA law they do have to prove intent for shoplifting.

>Shoplifting is defined as entering a commercial establishment with an intent to commit larceny while it's open during regular business hours and the value of the property taken, or intended to be taken, is $950 or less. Any other entry into a commercial business with intent to commit larceny is burglary.

intent matter for a lot of crimes across the board

I think it does make a difference. It's effectively taunting the prosecutors, who will find ways to retaliate. So prison time either way, but likely more than if he had shut up.

Yes - he easily could've spent a decade out of jail - possibly with quite a lavish life - and ended up serving much less jail time.

So - on basically every account - he would've been far, far better off to STFU.

Point is, there might be enough dirt to convict him without him talking, but there can't be any less with him talking.

It does. His tweets were in the SEC's complaints this morning. Tweets AFTER the collapse.

Hard to say how much difference it would make but why would you give your opponent a freebie?

I generally agree with you, but if I had to steelman SBF's actions:

1. Prosecutors don't operate independently of the court of public opinion. They can throw the book at you (e.g. the George Floyd officers) or let you off easy (e.g. other officers who historically did similar things but did not face the same charges).

2. The current perception is that he committed fraud (like Madoff), and if convicted for that would likely go to prison for the rest of his life.

3. He's clearly not innocent of wrongdoing, and there's too many people involved who are cooperating with authorities, so just being quiet doesn't help him as much (in contrast to being found at a crime scene with no witnesses).

4. If he can get a conviction only of criminal negligence then perhaps he can get out of prison faster.

5. Thus perhaps if he can loudly admit to being a bumbling idiot and super negligent, it might sway the public opinion to criminal negligence instead of outright fraud.

FWIW it's possible that SBF's post-FTX-bankruptcy actions and words created such a spectacle that federal regulators and investigators were spurred to hit him hard and fast. But all the key evidence cited* comes from what he either tweeted before the collapse, or presented in private to investors.

By comparison, Do Kwon has been relatively quiet but that didn't stop him from South Korea putting out an arrest warrant on him in September. But it seems he's still "free" b/c he spent his time hiding his whereabouts.

* (at least in the SEC civil lawsuit)

SBF is quite obviously on the spectrum and I think that has a lot to do with his inability to use "No comment".

> SBF is quite obviously on the spectrum and I think that has a lot to do with his inability to use "No comment".

He may be, but going for the Lauri Love defense as your 'hail mary' may have been his only move left; they'll likely claim that this will be clear indication of his mental state in order to to get a lighter sentence or end up in a white-collar prison rather than a stint in Chino.

It’s common knowledge to keep your mouth shut at this point. You don’t need to have highly-regarded lawyers advising you to know this, but SBF had (at least) two: his parents, who were with him in the Bahamas.

Even if he was under a delusion that the rules wouldn’t apply to him, we can assume his parents would do everything in their power to reign him in if this was not some sort of strategy.

From what I understand of the interviews, he carefully avoided going into details, and instead used the opportunity to present himself as an “aw, shucks” borderline simpleton with a heart of gold who just got in over his head. He was going to be arrested either way, so how do you see this as not a carefully-planned attempt to improve his public image?

>You don’t need to have highly-regarded lawyers advising you to know this, but SBF had (at least) two: his parents, who were with him in the Bahamas.

My experience has been that working with family or very close friends often nullifies or severally weakens professional sensibilities. It would be very understandable and almost expected if his parents are too closely involved emotionally and financially to be objective in this situation, and even if they were, the parent-child relationship also affects how one takes advice.

I would never rely on a close family member for important legal services, it seems almost as bad an idea as relying on yourself for legal services.

Where do people who do these kind of crimes go when they're sent to jail? Like.. is there a jail for financial criminals? A place where you're not sharing a bunk with a serial killer but just a billion dollar fraudster?

Or are they usually put into the same place?

Minimum security prison, at least in the United States.

https://blog.globaltel.com/white-collar-prison/

It's often arrogance that leads to these things. I have a feeling he thought that the "aw shucks, I didn't know what was happening and I want to make things right" shtick would somehow work. He seems like a pretty dumb guy.

> How anyone could look at this man's behavior over the last few weeks and not think he was on a fast track to a federal penitentiary is beyond me.

That was obvious, but some of us who have seen some version of this before have been saying he was going to end up in prison when he entered US political donating/purchasing influence since the beginning of 2022; it was clear where this was all going and the hope was that it would take down all the alt scams, but somehow despite not having any BTC it has taken down the entire cryptocurrency market for no discernible reason.

Its the epitome of contagion effect in practice; and while hindsight is 20/20 I fear that the greatest take away here will be missed because of the ire that has been fomented in the media: insiders will use anything to achieve their largess, that regulation is a loosely held panacea when said insiders use influence and resources to grift.

I think he will get a light sentence, relative to the amount of money that has been lost, like Elizabeth Holmes as he scammed a lot of big players/rich people but it will not be the 2 life sentences that Ross Ulbricht, and that is the real point: we have a multi-tiered judicial system with a very clearly established selective application of the Law.

Probably also shouldn’t go back and delete semi-incriminating tweets[0] and try to avoid bot detection by tweeting one letter at a time[1] to keep the overall count the same (supposedly)[2].

[0] https://protos.com/sam-bankman-fried-caught-deleting-more-tw...

[1] https://fortune.com/crypto/2022/11/14/sam-bankman-fried-cryp...

[2] https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ywz4j8/sam_...

Today there was an article about his parents in nytimes. I think at at least one of them is professor of law. And both parents seems to be involved with his company. I wonder if he didnt get any advice from them about not talking?! Maybe he knew that he is done legally and there is no downside to talking to public.

There's a pathology amongst wealthy people where they think that the law doesn't apply to them, period, and are simply shocked when it does.

Some other recent examples of this include the lawyer Michael Avenatti going to jail for decades for stealing from his clients, and everything that has ever happened to Donald Trump.

(In my experience as a white person it is mostly other white people who think this, but I don't want to generalize.)

> (In my experience as a white person it is mostly other white people who think this, but I don't want to generalize.)

How to casually stereotype without stereotyping?

I would argue they have this belief because it is so often true. Exceptions are surprising to many people.

It's true to an extent. It's rarely true to the extent they imagine.

Check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

Wealthy is subjective, I know, and here, on HN, it's certainly more subjective than most places, but are Stanford professors really consider wealthy? By northern california standards?

Not a lawyer neither, but in the leaked testemony of his to congress, he states multiple times that he didn't want to file for Chaoter 11 and even ordered people not to. Sounds a little bit incriminating, postponing Chapter 11, insolvency proceedings and all that.

Seems he really cannot shut up...

Or he didn't want to file for Chapter 11 because he is obsessed with being in the limelight. That would also explain why he can't shut up.

Either way, this whole story deserves a book, a film and a ton of popcorn.

I really don't get this either. The guy has got to have a whole legion of lawyers. How are they allowing him to still speak publicly? I'm not even important and I've been consoled by company lawyers to not talk about stuff just "just in case". Yet this guy is is involved in one of the most high profile cases of all time screaming from the mountaintops about it.

This whole FTX thing is very suspicious on all kinds of levels internally and externally. So many things about FTX don't make sense as presented.

He ignores the lawyers.

The strategy of ignoring advice from attorneys has "worked" for Trump and Musk. Welcome to the age of solipsistic anti-expertise, where cultivating your personal brand matters above all else. It seems like an inevitable condition of deep set post-reality. The interesting question is what develops next.

Fascism. Large flowery fascism.

I guess you guys are right. The return of "big men" aka dictators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_man_%28political_science%2...

Honestly though, I'm happy he talked more in this situation. We shouldn't decry people who acted horribly unethically digging their own legal grave.

The guy is a thief who defrauded millions. His hubris is what got him in this situation.

Last interview. Some pressure applied here... https://unusualwhales.com/sbf-interview

In this last interview, he talks about how several customers had negative balances on the platform due to margin trading. According to the SEC's civil suit, the only customer that had a negative balance was Alameda.

They blatantly were doing all sorts of illegal stuff with Alameda-they had god-mode (no liqs) and probably could see and snipe other peoples stops.

Source?

No kidding. If my business had lost billions of dollars belonging to other people, I would only be talking to a small army of lawyers. This guy acted like he had a deathwish.

SBF's mother and father are both Standford law professors - so he knows all this.

He has another angle. Maybe he was trying to taint the jury pool. He was up to something, but what?

Parents also not out of the woods.

"The FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried’s mother and father, who teach at Stanford Law School, are under scrutiny for their connections to their son’s crypto business." - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/12/technology/sbf-parents-ft...

I'm beginning to suspect this story is deeper than it looks.

Judge people by their observed behaviors, not what you assume they should know. Lots of people should be smart and should act more intelligently than they do.

There are many accounts of SBF's capacity for subterfuge. I don't believe he was blabbing about what he did because he's stupid.

You can be a smart crook and still be stupid enough to do stupid things. Especially if you think you are smart enough to get away with it.

I don't think it would have made much of a difference either way. The feds did their own investigation and would have arrived at the same conclusions anyway

But, he has a savior complex... And you should too!

White-collar crime prosecutions are notoriously time-consuming to prepare, by those standards this was remarkably swift.

Both of his parents are in law too. Like, you'd think he'd know enough to not say anything.

I beg to differ. By all means, keep talking!

I just don't follow my own advice I give to criminals like SBF.

No, no, let him talk.

Donald Trump did exactly the opposite of your advice at every turn, yet remains free and unindicted. SBF’s main mistake seems to have been not cultivating political clout before committing fraud, not anything related to what he said or did.

Trump was president. Not saying the POTUS is above the law, but it's a much more complicated & explosive situation for law enforcement. And his political clout & influence he used to commit said crimes in broad daylight is way more than some political donations.

Trump's corporations are indicted and he's banned from running charities in New York. He was also impeached twice, which is the same thing as being indicted (and convicted too).

> He was also impeached twice, which is the same thing as being indicted (and convicted too).

The Senate trial is the equivalent of conviction; the House impeachment trial is more the equivalent of a grand jury indictment (although a very politicized one). No US President has ever been convicted in the Senate trial, Trump included.

Tldr: Being stupid and naïve is not a good legal defense

Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgWHrkDX35o

SBF is a self entitled, privileged prick. He has no concept of infallibility. He is smart and rich so he thinks he will be given a pass

Ok, but can you please stop posting unsubstantive/flamey comments to HN? You've done that repeatedly, unfortunately.

You may not owe ex-billionaire fraud defendants better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com