pomaj46808 t1_j2x61u6 wrote
Reply to comment by LordOfTheTennisDance in Sam Bankman-Fried pleads not guilty to federal fraud charges in New York amidst renewed federal probe by fadufadu
It'll all comes down to whether or not they can convince jurors that he got in over his head about stuff he didn't understand and things fell apart because his friends took advantage of that fact.
The prosecution needs to get the jury to understand crypto finance enough to understand what actions Sam took constituted intentional fraud, and also convince a jury that the people testifying against him aren't just trying to save their own asses via plea deals.
The defense just needs to say, "I don't understand this stuff, you don't understand this stuff, and he didn't understand this stuff. He thought he did, and that led to him making major mistakes in clearly risky areas of finance. The people saying otherwise have every reason to lie."
They don't even need to flip the jury, just make that seem likely enough to get a better deal from the prosecution.
LordOfTheTennisDance t1_j2y56ca wrote
The "I don't understand" defense is not a defense and will fall flat. Can you imagine if someone shot a person and then claimed that they didn't understand how to use a gun and so they accidentally killed a person and then proceeded to accidentally cover up the "accident"?
I think if they go down this route it will be a very quick guilty verdict. Stupidity is not a defense, but I agree with you that it's most likely their only option.
pomaj46808 t1_j2ypwm2 wrote
>Can you imagine if someone shot a person and then claimed that they didn't understand how to use a gun and so they accidentally killed a person and then proceeded to accidentally cover up the "accident"?
First, it depends on what they're charged with. Because if they're being charged with murder, they can absolutely argue they didn't understand how to use a gun. Generally, when charged with murder they need to prove you intended to kill. If I fire a gun at you and just meant to scare you but happened to nail you between the eyes, then in many if not most states, it's not murder.
Depending on the charges "mens rea" can be the difference between jail for life and time served with a fine.
kandoras t1_j2yfnnj wrote
You don't need to understand crypto to be able to follow what he did.
He created two companies; FTX was a ponzi scheme and Alemeda siphoned the money people invested in FTX into their own accounts. Then, eventually and like happens with all ponzi schemes, the house of cards fell apart.
It's not really any more complicated than that.
pomaj46808 t1_j2yoxar wrote
>You don't need to understand crypto to be able to follow what he did.
No, not if the prosecutors guide the jury and tell their story well.
The prosecution will argue their side and the defense will poke holes and argue alternative narratives. One of which will likely be comparable to what he's been claiming in interviews.
The defense doesn't need to confuse the jury on what happened so much as convince them Sam was confused and arrogant but not acting criminally.
kandoras t1_j2yz5d9 wrote
"I was smart enough to make $26 billion, but stupid enough not to know that my clients' money was not mine" is going to be a pretty tough tightrope to walk.
Projectrage t1_j3lvlf4 wrote
He was also the largest donor to the Biden presidential campaign. What he did was a ponzi and potentially funneled money from foreign governments to the presidential campaign.
We need more oversight to get money out of politics.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments