Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

amateur_mistake t1_j7mekpu wrote

So, this is happening because SBF was contacting other people from FTX and saying things that sounded a whole hell of a lot like witness tampering:

>Prosecutors had asked last month to tighten bail, citing Bankman-Fried's efforts to contact both the general counsel of the FTX U.S. affiliate and new FTX Chief Executive John Ray, ostensibly to provide assistance.

>Their proposed conditions would prevent Bankman-Fried from talking with most employees of FTX or his Alameda Research hedge fund without lawyers present, or using encrypted messaging apps such as Signal.

The prosecutor and his lawyers worked out a deal and presented it to the judge. It is very unclear why the judge rejected it. But SBF should probably be behind bars if he is going to use his freedom to fuck with the case in this way.

87

ForgetfulFrolicker t1_j7ngkdc wrote

It’s funny how this guy is still trying to make moves.

Is there really any chance of him not being convicted and spending his life behind bars? They need to make an example out of him.

20

InigoMontoya757 t1_j7njqdd wrote

> Is there really any chance of him not being convicted and spending his life behind bars?

Two of his co-conspirators have already plead guilty and are pointing the finger at him. The sentencing matrix could net him 115 years behind bars. I don't believe the judge has a lot of leeway to give him a shorter sentence, either.

23

Chippopotanuse t1_j7p9t9e wrote

So, the judge declined to order to what federal prosecutors and defense counsel agreed to. This is certainly spicy.

(Not saying the judge is wrong to do so, just saying it’s rare that a judge overrules what the DOJ is seeking).

What’s concerning to me is the following:

> U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan did not provide reasons for the denial, and said a hearing on bail remains scheduled for Feb. 9.

I think if a judge is going to rule from the bench and decline a stipulated agreement of the parties…the judge ought to be able to give some insight into why. Not just a “nope, because dad said so”.

When I was doing more active practice, on my pro bono domestic violence cases (which was always on the side of the survivor of the violence) I’d always try to kindly request that if the judge was inclined to rule against me on any grant of a restraining order that he put his findings of fact in a written opinion so that it could be preserved for appeal.

That said, this dummy is tampering with witnesses and deserves to be in jail until trial.

6