Hacker News Reader

Comment by erikig | Hacker News Reader

(Sentencing Judge Lewis) Kaplan also rejected Bankman-Fried’s claim that he deserves a lighter sentence because many of his victims may be made whole on their lost investments.

"If a thief steals money, takes it to Las Vegas, and earns a handsome profit by gambling, he is still a thief, even if the funds are repaid." [1]

[1] https://www.thedailybeast.com/ftx-crypto-fraudster-sam-bankm...

SBF's crime wasn't losing money, had he gotten authorization to make these investments from his depositors, he wouldn't have been in this position.

View on HN

It's necessary to penalize this behavior, if Fidelity or other fiduciary engaged in similar behavior - the losses could be catastrophic.

And even more, it was luck and 'fortune' that this is the case now. It's nothing of SBF's doing. They're only able to be made whole because of the market.

Crypto could easily have crashed. And then...?

That's not quite true. Many of the investments did quite good and outperformed alternatives. Investment in anthropic AI would be a good example.

How does that in any way contradict the comment you’re responding to? They’re saying it was luck, saying it was successful does not mean it wasn’t just luck…

I was addressing the crypto markets being up portion of the post.

Great. Many of those investments should never have been able to be made in the first place, because they came through fraudulent actions.

Sure, those gains can be used to make investors whole. No, SBF shouldn't get any credit for his "foresight" because they can.

There was a point within a couple of months of the Madoff collapse where it was shown that if he'd sent out an email to his investors saying, "Here's the deal, we're freezing. No more deposits. No withdrawals for now", and he'd left everything untouched for four years, he would have been in the black. His efforts wouldn't have been right or net-zero if he'd done that, though.

>Sure, those gains can be used to make investors whole. No, SBF shouldn't get any credit for his "foresight" because they can.

I guess this is the point I was getting at, and I disagree with it. Even if you rob and kill 100 children, it doesn't invalidate the foresight.

Foreshight on a specific topic is a sperate topic and specific actions can be judged independently. IF SBF a bad person, but also says the sky is blue, that doesnt make it false.

Why should you get more "credit" for stealing[1] from someone to make an investment that turns out to be good, versus stealing from someone to fund strippers and cocaine? You still took the same amount from the person.

[1] For clarity, what SBF did is not, I realize, theft. Just an example.

I have no idea what you mean by "credit".

I'm talking about recognition that someone was able to make a correct prediction or calculation.

If someone is a mass murderer but invents cold fusion, You can hold both facts to be true. They made a great scientific discovery and that they were a killer. The facts are not in competition.

SBF may have had a good read on the market, and a good eye for investments. He may also be a criminal. Humans have multiple dimensions, so both can be true.

The root assumption in some of this thread is that "Well, should SBF get a lighter sentence because his victims can be made whole?"

That's the "credit" part. No, he shouldn't. Crypto gains after the seizure of FTX funds are not of his doing, and shouldn't benefit him. Similarly, an argument can be made that he shouldn't necessarily have had access to some of the funds that he used for investment.

I'm not denying (nor much caring) that he has made some good investment choices.

The comment I responded to was:

>And even more, it was luck and 'fortune' that this is the case now. It's nothing of SBF's doing. They're only able to be made whole because of the market. Crypto could easily have crashed. And then...?

If you arent addressing this point, you are in the wrong part of the threaded conversation.

Right. I wrote that.

What I am saying: SBF should not be able to get his sentence reduced because he made good investments with ill-gotten funds. Whether he is capable of that or not is immaterial.

The market continued to rise after he ceased to be involved with those investments. Why should he reap the benefit of good fortune (indirectly, in reducing his sentence) because of that rise? It had nothing to do with his intent for that money - his intent was generally to enrich himself, family and friends, and if others got the leftovers, lucky for them. Hence the three private jets he owned. Saying "well, he made some good decisions so there's more to pay people back with, so he should get less jailtime" is BS, to me.

all I am saying is credit where credit is due.

I think that it is fair to recognize that SBF/FTX selected some wise investments, and I dont think that was all pure luck.

Im not trying to make any wild claim beyond that about morality, you are the one bringing that into it.

I'm not sure that I agree with this, because that would make most banks thieves.

The operating model of a bank is to take depositors money and loan it out at a higher interest rate; Then there are investment banks that "hedge risk" and seek higher return ratios - ie what happened to Bear Stearns in 2008 (a reminder that nobody went to jail for 2008).

But surely the bank gets permission beforehand?

Except there are laws in place to limit how much can be lent out (Google "federal reserve requirements").

You seem to be missing the concept of consent in your analysis. I’d say it’s pretty foundational.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com