I said this when the bail was announced. There can be no bail for crypto crimes, and no eventual release. It’s the nature of crypto that SBF will always have various piles of stolen cash at his finger tips. Justice would be an IRS man following him round for the rest of his life, and any time he happens upon some fortunate cash… thanks we’ll be having that.
He does not need approval for raising money for legal or court costs. How can people commenting be sure he is using the money for something else.
Not sure why people commenting online are getting this wrong, both on Redditt and Twitter. One Twitter user, "BowTiedIguana", who was cited in a Yahoo article, is confusing the magistrate judge at the detention hearing with the district judge, Abrams, who recused herself weeks before her scheduled hearing with SBF on 3 Jan 2023. SBF has never met Abrams.
The question no one is answering is who are the two unnamed sureties that signed off on his release and allowed SBF to post bond. It stands to reason those folks are paying his lawyers, too. SBF's bond was $250M. There is no way his parents' property is worth even close to that amount, so these unnamed persons were essential for SBF's release. One of them is not a family member.
Blockonomi: "Sam Bankman-Fried Cashed Out Over $600k, Violating Parole?"
In the US, there is no parole at the federal level. It was abolished in 1984. Maybe the website is using the term in a general sense, not specific to the US.
Blockonomi: "SBK is only allowed to spend less than $100."
Perhaps this is a typographical error where someone omitted a zero.
What the bail disposition form actually says: "... Defendant not to open new lines of credit, open a business, or enter into financial transactions in excess of $1,000 without pre-approval of the Government or Court, except to pay for legal costs and fees; equity interest in parent's home to be posted by 1/12/23. (Entered: 12/22/2022)"
Blockonomi: "Transferring money or converting it to cash does not count as spending money."
OK, I am lost here.
Financial transactions could include include spending, e.g., purchases, as well as sales, i.e., receiving proceeds.
Only the court or the US attorney know if SBF obtained pre-approval.
If the monies are used to pay for legal costs and fees, then no pre-approval would be required.
"Blockonomi adheres to the strictest journalistic policies, we have a commitment to providing fair and unbiased reporting in all of our news coverage. Our journalists are required to fact-check each article before it is published and provide sources for quotes and statistics. Each article is checked by an editor before publication."
Even with his wealth and network, the guy is probably going to prison for many years. Before that he gets to live a little longer as a relatively free man.
So what?
Peoples brains seem to shut off and they just focus on this brief pre prison time like it’s some circumvention of justice.
Assuming this is true... I hope the heavy hammer of justice comes crashing down on this slimy bastard. We could really use a boost to confidence in our institutions. Just hope he doesn't get "Epsteined".
> Did you miss the detail where the judge that set his bail conditions had her husband advise for FTX?
I don't think this is correct. That was the judge (Abrams) who decided to recuse herself. The judge who had already set the bail conditions (Gorenstein) was a different person, and I haven't heard that he had any prior connection to SBF or FTX. Here's an article about it: https://www.ibtimes.com/judge-handling-sbf-case-recuses-hers...
> the judge that set his bail conditions had her husband advise for FTX?
Aside from this not being true (a different judge set his bail), I don’t understand why people assume this conflict of interest would have somehow benefited SBF.
Presumably the reputation of her husband’s firm has been damaged by their relationship with FTX. They are embarrassed to have worked with him. They stand to gain absolutely nothing from him getting off lightly. The judge recused herself to avoid the appearance of bias against SBF. She doesn’t want him to appeal a conviction by arguing “of course I was found guilty, the judge’s husband hates me!”
At this point one has to wonder if the prosecutors agreed to these bail terms because they know this guy is so pathological he just can’t stop himself and would go on to make all kinds of stupid moves (just like he did leading up to his indictment).
This is likely one of the many nails he’ll hand them so they can hammer his coffin shut at trial and sentencing.
Also minor nitpick - a "first class private flight" is incongruous. He flew back first class on a commercial flight which has terrible optics but is actually pretty reasonable considering his profile, he (supposedly) had federal agents shadowing him, etc.
Optics are the main reason for judicial process of SBF at this point, to dissuade others and for viewing by the victims. It's not like tossing him in jail is going to bring back the money he stole.
Maybe because the crimes were not computer related in nature? For example Kevin Mitnick was caught hacking and banned from computers, internet, etc. Are fraudsters typically banned from computers?
This is Crypto. Yeah nothing computer related... LOL.
Maybe that will explain some strange movements recently reported on crypto assets
related to FTX ;-)
Let’s be clear. It was discovered that her husband worked for a company that had served FTX. Not serving them directly. This is not something that would be easily immediately discoverable. She refused herself. Everything here seems timely and proper.
