If at the end of the story, everybody affected is made whole, could it be argued that his sentence should be reduced?
* Some FTX investments, in particular Anthropic, have done very well over the past 2 years.
* Due to the mechanics of bankruptcy law, FTX's cryptocurrency liabilities were effectively converted to dollar liabilities when they filed, meaning that all crypto price increases since then are free money for the asset recovery. (You could reasonably frame this as bankruptcy victims not really being made whole, since their claims are substantially less than what FTX would owe them if it were still running, although there's good reasons it works this way.)
NO. THE ANSWER IS NO.
It my understanding (I could be wrong) that on financial crimes it does make a difference if you make the victims whole or not. No idea if it also applies somehow after the ruling, hence why I asked on this forum for intelligent discourse. Sorry if that bothers you, though.
Breaking and entering is a crime on its own, while most financial crimes are non-violent by nature; a whole different set of rules apply.
Burglary is also different from fraud. Read about it, I can recommend a dictionary.
If not, the person doing the B&E gets a lighter sentence, but they still get punished.
> Depending on the type of claim they hold in the case, some creditors could recover as much as 142% of what they are owed. The vast majority of customers, however, will likely get 118% of what they had on the FTX platform the day the company entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
If you had 2 bitcoins worth say 16k each in FTX; FTX is able to give you back 32k which is the value of your bitcoin at the time. (~Nov '22). But it's not giving you back 2 bitcoins (120k; presently).
Same with if you had Solana which was $13 (~Nov '22) but is now $148.
As someone who has been convicted of a financial crime (theft of funds from an association account due in part to a gambling addiction).
The key word in your statement is "YOU". My sentence/deal involved restitution from my own funds. If I'd taken some of the money I took and put it into crypto, that would be -used- to make my victims whole, but it wouldn't be considered me making recompense, because the money I put into crypto would have been ill-gotten, and as such any gains were not mine to give.
That very much made a difference to the discussions between my attorney and the prosecutor.
While we like to think of the law and its application as a dispassionate process that only looks at the facts, the sense that someone has been harmed plays a big role in the process and jury decisions.
This development weakens any arguments around harm to others, it could also strengthen arguments in favor of incompetence as opposed to malfeasance when it comes to explaining what actually happened to investor money.