Sam Bankman-Fried, Former Crypto Billionaire, Appeals His Conviction To the US Supreme Court (cnn.com) 73
America's highest court heard Sam Bankman-Fried's request for a new trial on Thursday, CNN reports. But they add that "the former crypto mogul who was convicted of defrauding investors by secretly diverting billions of dollars of their money" also asked America's high court "to throw out a court order requiring him to pay $11 billion as part of his sentence."
Bankman-Fried was sentenced to 25 years in prison in 2024 after prosecutors said he directed billions of dollars from the crypto exchange FTX to a hedge fund he controlled called Alameda Research, where the funds were used for risky investments, political donations and his own personal benefit. The Supreme Court appeal, which was reviewed by CNN, raises a technical question about evidence that was submitted at his trial, and whether Bankman-Fried should have been permitted to demonstrate that his investments were ultimately sound and would have covered any losses by FTX customers.
He also argues that the $11 billion forfeiture violates the 8th Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines. "Where the government pursues a theory of fraud under which it doesn't matter whether any victims lost money, introducing evidence suggesting that people actually lost money is distracting and prejudicial," veteran Supreme Court attorney Jeffrey Fisher told CNN. "All the more so where the truth is the victims did not lose money, and the defendant is unable to make that clear."
The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the arguments earlier this year.
He also argues that the $11 billion forfeiture violates the 8th Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines. "Where the government pursues a theory of fraud under which it doesn't matter whether any victims lost money, introducing evidence suggesting that people actually lost money is distracting and prejudicial," veteran Supreme Court attorney Jeffrey Fisher told CNN. "All the more so where the truth is the victims did not lose money, and the defendant is unable to make that clear."
The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the arguments earlier this year.
bjoo hjoo (Score:3, Insightful)
Forgetting he exists would be the best punishment.
Re: (Score:3)
Why does he even care to get out of jail? He's on record telling everyone who'd listen that his risk aversion is close to zero. That literally means he doesn't care what the outcome of his bet is. Well, he made the bet, and being in jail is the outcome.
Also, what could he possibly do out of jail that he can't already do in jail? Clearly he's able to talk to people, which he could do outside too. Nobody will listen to him inside or out, because he's a convicted fraud. Also in jail he gets 3 square meals pe
Re: (Score:2)
Also, what could he possibly do out of jail that he can't already do in jail?
Bowling? Mini golf?? 'Smores???
Re: (Score:3)
Mini golf is so yesterday! The cool kids play micro-golf with an election microscope [acs.org].
Barring that, there's always the DIY version using a plastic straw and a tiny ball of paper.
Re: bjoo hjoo (Score:3)
Re: bjoo hjoo (Score:2)
Adderal, duh.
(Well, in the quantities he *wants*, anyway.)
Re: (Score:2)
Chef Slowik would like to introduce him to smores.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: bjoo hjoo (Score:2)
Re: bjoo hjoo (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:bjoo hjoo (Score:5, Insightful)
But ironically effective altruism actually worked in this case. Being a selfish, thieving cunt landed him in prison and arguably the greater good was served. It needs to happen more often.
Re: (Score:3)
I hope to live long enough to see more than a few of the "longtermist" frauds get their just rewards
Re:bjoo hjoo (Score:5, Informative)
Not that I think he should succeed in his appeal, but as someone who's worked at the DOJ and seen the inside of a prison multiple times (as a staffer), I can assure you being incarcerated is a miserable and demeaning experience. Zero freedom, awful food, extremely uncomfortable conditions (what you think those places are air conditioned?). Throw the non-zero chance of being stabbed to death because your neighbor, chuck the schizophrenic rapist , doesn't like your hair color, and your absolute inability to escape unpleasant people. Oh and months on end of 23hours a day locked in a single mindmeltingly boring room. For the next 30 years!
Yeah trust me any sane man would do anything in their power to get out of that very fucking unpleasant situtation,
Re:bjoo hjoo (Score:5, Informative)
That is what it is supposed to be. We don't rehabilitate in the US we PUNISH, and incidentally teach criminal techniques.
Re: bjoo hjoo (Score:3)
That is what it is supposed to be. We don't rehabilitate in the US we PUNISH, and incidentally teach criminal techniques.
+1 Sad
Re: (Score:2)
that is actually the truth. We remove the "dangerous" elements to protect the rest. The problem lies when the worst distill into absolute anarchy. Do you believe in capital punishment ? That is truly the only way to remove the worst elements from society. While in theory I support it. I would not want to be the one deciding who gets the "final solution". Things like that seldom work out :(.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it incidental, or is it the system protecting itself? Recidivism leads to profit.
Re: (Score:3)
Only if we allow private equity to run for profit prisons. We tried it in Arizona. It went badly. The federal government now runs our prisons because our state legislators will not pay for or hire Dr's in prisons. We allowed a company to run them. They did, right into the ground and criminal proceedings.
Re: (Score:2)
Private prisons are the worst but they aren't the only problem prisons. A government employee's "power" is based on the headcount of their reports. More problems, more headcount, more power. More opportunities for kickbacks and to pocket funds.
What a moron. (Score:5, Insightful)
Appealing to the Supreme Court is dumb. The easiest, and 100% guaranteed, path out of prison for him is to start praising the POTUS. Praise all his policies, hate and blame all his opponents. Openly offer him a blow job, and pledge a large monetary donation.
Re:What a moron. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What a moron. (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesnt matter, Trump only cares about money, slip him a million and you get a pardon.
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to say that, and beaten to it. Might be two million or so, from what I've seen. Well worth it if you have that sort of spare cash. I see this as a not if, but when, situation.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, Trump loves sycophants but he still knows how to do politics. He can pardon some Democrat politician nobody has really heard of, but there are some people who are just toxic. SBF is toxic, Trump knows this, he knows any pardon will look very bad and Trump loves looking good almost as much as money.
And don't forget SBF lost a lot of the 1%'s money, I can't see Trump pardoning any such person, the moment he floats an SPF pardon among his 1% friends they'll quietly tell him it's a no go.
Re: What a moron. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So? One can change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What a moron. (Score:4, Informative)
That's wrong. This guy was born with a silver plate. His entire family is rich, even without his crypto fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It has already been established that the officers of the company were structuring their donations, so that while specific people recovered donations to specific parties overall donations were spread across parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of his donations were to Democrats, so he has no chance for that. https://time.com/6241262/sam-b... [time.com]
And JD Vance called him Hitler. Trump accepts changes of heart as long as they include sufficient groveling and self-humiliation. SBF's problem is he doesn't currently have any money, and doesn't have a lot of friends to put up cash for him either. If SCOTUS will overturn his fine on a technicality and he can get some or all of that money back, then he'll have the cash to buy a pardon. Obviously he needs to get it done in the next 2 years, four months.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or maybe one person was paying attention and knows this was already tried and failed.
Re:What a moron. (Score:5, Informative)
He already tried that. https://finance.yahoo.com/mark... [yahoo.com] https://www.coindesk.com/polic... [coindesk.com] and the appealed directly: https://www.bbc.com/news/artic... [bbc.com]
Re:What a moron. (Score:4, Interesting)
Appealing to the Supreme Court is dumb. The easiest, and 100% guaranteed, path out of prison for him is to start praising the POTUS. Praise all his policies, hate and blame all his opponents. Openly offer him a blow job, and pledge a large monetary donation.
I have mixed feelings on this.
On the one hand, someone who believes they have been wrongfully convicted of any crime should be allowed to have that conviction reviewed by every level of justice that exists.
On the other hand, I feel something like a supreme court should spend its time on law matters that impact a large portion of their country. Issues and topics that refer to policy and fundamental law. Spending their time examining a single person's case feels like a use of their time that is unjust to the rest of the country.
On the gripping hand, there could be individual-level cases that do have society-wide impact.
In the end, this is only happening because there's a lot of money involved, which also feels unjust. A random citizen wrongfully convicted of theft or fraud could never get their case before the US Supreme Court, so why should this guy? I hate it all.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Your failed understanding of how the law and courts work is your problem, not the courts. The Supreme Court may review cases where the process may have been flawed, the purpose of that is to benefit society, to "impact a large portion of their country".
"Spending their time examining a single person's case feels like a use of their time that is unjust to the rest of the country."
Because you don't understand why.
Re: (Score:2)
Your failed understanding of how the law and courts work is your problem, not the courts. The Supreme Court may review cases where the process may have been flawed, the purpose of that is to benefit society, to "impact a large portion of their country".
"Spending their time examining a single person's case feels like a use of their time that is unjust to the rest of the country." Because you don't understand why.
Wow. Brutal.
I was very careful in my choice of words. This isn't about understanding. It's about feeling, which is why I used the word "feel" instead of "think" repeatedly.
I understand the role of the US Supreme Court and its equivalents in other countries. It's just that I'm uncomfortable with it being triggered in this case. I'm sure that doing so will be technically correct if allowed, but I don't feel that this case is a witchhunt... it's a witch. Yes, that means I've convicted Bankman-Fried i
Court requires an appeal, checks and balances? (Score:2)
I was very careful in my choice of words.
My first impression was also that you seemed to be missing the fact that an individual person's case can be the vehicle by which the court reviews something that will "impact a large portion of their country".
Here is my wild ass speculation. The Supreme Court might normally need to work from an appeal as part of the checks and balances of the Constitution. That they cannot just pick an arbitrary concept on their own, debate it in the abstract, and issue a ruling on it. That seems to encroach on the legis
Re: (Score:2)
I was very careful in my choice of words.
My first impression was also that you seemed to be missing the fact that an individual person's case can be the vehicle by which the court reviews something that will "impact a large portion of their country".
Fair enough, and the feedback is always appreciated. All I can offer in return is to bold what I wrote...
"On the gripping hand, there could be individual-level cases that do have society-wide impact."
Points for "gripping hand" though, :-)
Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
there could be individual-level cases that do have society-wide impact
I think "could" is the problem, it makes the individual level case sound too optional. My understanding is that for even a very broad and well agreed upon concept, such a civil rights, an individual case is pretty much required. I believe civil rights advocates reviewed many individual case before selecting Rosa Parks as the case to get the issue before the Supreme Court. And famous Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had stated that "Roe v Wade" was probably the wrong case to use to bring abortion ri
Re: (Score:2)
The US Supreme Court, and supreme courts in general, are not "triggered." You appeal to them to hear your case. They may do so if they feel that your case is somehow relevant to wider issues.
The US Supreme Court might hear this case if they wanted to interpret the constitution in such a way as to set upper limits placed on fines, or wished to issue a judgement on the idea that fraud is still fraud if nobody gets hurt.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't read the details of the appeal. But it's possible that SBF's counsel is appealing the rejection handed to them by the 2nd Circuit Court. Which would make this USSC business. Appealing is the defence counsel's right. And duty to their client, if they don't want to start an "ineffective counsel" case.
If the 2nd Circuit Court did their job correctly, the USSC may refuse his appeal. I have mixed feelings about this. If the Supreme Court could take the case but then slap an extra 10 years on SBFs senten
Re: (Score:2)
Appealing to the Supreme Court will only cost you a used RV.
Task is cheap (Score:2)
No-Bank-but-Fraud really seems to think his whacky haircut and just-keep-talking is going to save him in court despite the fact it already got him a massive conviction.
What a toxic egomaniac and fraudster.
Ordinarily he just get a Trump pardon (Score:2, Informative)
That's what happened with Andrew tate. I don't know the details but he was apparently running around with Barron Trump and caused some problems for the Trumps. So it's off to rot in prison for him.
Fraud = lies, not loss (Score:4, Informative)
If I tell you I am going to invest your money in the stock market but instead go to Vegas and put it all on red, that is fraud. I owe penalties even if Red came up, I doubled the money and I paid you back plus 15%.
You do not get to claim "No one lost money", because otherwise, lots of people will do exactly what I just said.
I get to decide how to risk my money, not the lying shmuck that takes it.
Re: (Score:3)
"Why shouldn't you exercise Caveat Emptor?"
If you have to assume that EVERY STATEMENT of EVREY PARTY is false before the fact then you can never have any economic transactions of any kind.
Re: (Score:2)
First, It is up to the defense to pursue an argument. He is claiming no loss = no harm. He did NOT claim Caveat Emptor.
Second, Caveat Emptor only applies if no false statements were made. When you buy a car 'as is', and it does not start. That is your fault for not checking it. Similarly when you buy a mutual fund and do not bother to check that there is a 10% fee, you still have to pay the fee.
He sold a mutual fund, so the money has to go into the fund except for fees. He cannot take the money out of
Re: (Score:2)
You are not in the industry. Mutual funds have strict rules about what they can do with the money.
Basically, the manager has to comply with a TON of regulations which control what they can and cannot do with the money. Even things that they can invest in require a lot of reporting. If you ever look at the financials of a mutual fund they tell you things like Net Asset Value, Yield, % large cap vs medium cap, vs small cap vs bonds, etc
https://www.sec.gov/rules-regu... [sec.gov]
REAL NAME (Score:2)
His real name is "Sam Bankrupt-Fraud".
Commingling funds (Score:3)
He took the liabilities from custodial accounts held by the company and commingled them with assets of the company itself. It doesn't matter if the investments he then made were sound because he was not entitled to use the custodial accounts in that way.
If you drive off in someone else's car and put it back afterwards, that is still joyriding regardless of any purpose you had in taking the car. (Yes, I know the analogy is not perfect because there is some depreciation of the value of the car due to use.)
Caroline Ellison should be in jail (Score:1)
Ratting out your former boss should never be a get-out-of-jail-free ticket.
She was involved in all the wire fraud as well, on top of her prostitution activities.
Spoiled Nepo Baby (Score:2)
This selfish little twit is hoping everyone forgets that he stole BILLIONS of dollars from investors and just lets him out of jail. Dream on, Sammy. You deserve a room in the Graybar Hotel for a long time. And returning the cash should not be optional, either.
Fuck whoever made the subject (Score:2)
So his argument is... (Score:2)
Makes you wonder (Score:2)
Didn't suck donny's dicky enough (Score:1)
SBF doesn't get a pardon because he didn't suck donny's nubbin. All those January 2016 MAGA cop-killing assholes got pardons.
SBF wants to have his case heard by SCOTUS but it doesn't work that way. You have to buy Uncle Thomas a 1/4mil motorcoach first, along with a laminated explanation story so he can tell everyone how he came by it while pulling himself by his bootstraps.
And finally, SBF is one weirdo with a gorilla-cookie girlfriend. If he had Kim K to speak for him, then, and only then,
Justice would