can anyone tell me the justification for putting Samuel Bankman-fried in prison for 25 years but Trump gets a fine? Is it federal vs. state?
can anyone tell me the justification for putting Samuel Bankman-fried in prison for 25 years but Trump gets a fine? Is it federal vs. state?
Pretty much what the title says. I know he's a former president and has all of his supporters, but what's the official reason? Thanks.
I understand what you’re saying but the logic is a little flawed.
Yes, they both committed fraud.
SBF defrauded the crypto community, his investors, and FTX users.
Trump defrauded lenders, property insurers, and various tax authorities (and via that tax fraud, the taxpayers of NY and possibly the USA.)
SBF was charged criminally and found guilty. I assure you, the civil cases are coming against SBF. And the plaintiffs will most likely win those civil cases.
Trump was charged civilly and found guilty. I assure you, the criminal cases are coming against Trump. And the plaintiffs will most likely lose those criminal cases.
That’s the true difference.
the criminal cases are coming against Trump. And the plaintiffs will most likely lose those criminal cases.
Bank fraud seems relatively easy to charge him with. If you knowingly provide false info on a bank document, it's a federal crime. His signature on each loan application was a crime.
You can't tell the State of NY your building is worth $1 and tell the bank it's worth $3. These banks literally had a procedure for dealing with his constant lies on bank documents. Large banks are federally regulated and it's a federal crime to lie to them on your loan application.
Jesus fuck thank you, it's so hard seeing a bunch of doomer shit in threads like this
Saying he's going to win all the criminal cases is pretty doomer.
People keep asking this. I guess it's the new spin the Trump fascists are trying to work.
Why New York state is suing Trump instead of charging him with crimes
James seems to be taking this approach, as opposed to a criminal indictment, because New York law empowers the AG to seek damages caused by fraudulent business behavior as a form of consumer protection. The law doesn’t require the AG to identify a victim or even demonstrate anybody suffered harm. Plus, the burden of proof is lower in civil cases than in criminal ones.
“What makes this statute particularly powerful is that there doesn’t have to be a loss,” Will Thomas, a law professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, told Yahoo Finance. “This statute has been used to disgorge profits illegally gained. The government can be allowed to claw back all of those profits. Provable nature is lower, and you don’t have to prove intent or willfulness.”
A civil suit also prevents James from bumping into the criminal case against Trump’s company that the Manhattan district attorney is prosecuting. Those two offices sometimes work together on criminal cases, as they’re doing on the recent indictment of former Trump adviser Steve Bannon. With regard to Trump, however, they seem to be pursuing complementary approaches instead of overlapping ones.
So the answer is: it's easier to win, it's easier to punish Trump & they can still file criminal charges after a successful civil case if more crimes are uncovered.
Thank you. That's pretty much what I was looking for.
they're both terrible people who deserve everything they get but sbf didn't nominate judges to the court who can rule in his favour.
Also nobody’s threatening to kill judges who rule against sbf
Trump subscribes to a higher justice tier than Sam does.
Sam didn't spring for the ad-free tier and now has to have his time wasted?
Civil vs Criminal. Trump got a disgorgement, it's not a fine. He's been ordered to pay back his ill-gotten gains, that's not the same thing as a fine. Anyhow, a civil case can't end in jail time. That's not how civil cases work.
A civil case can end with a criminal indictment however, which is certainly coming at this point.
See my other post in this thread for why it was done this way.
Disgorgement isn't a fine, it's a special attack that deals acid damage.
It's not federal vs state
It's protected vs sacrificial lamb.
The powerful avoid the mobs by occasionally giving up one of their own to the horde.
If that is the case, why is Trump being tried at all?
Just because the powerful enjoy breaking laws with impunity doesn't mean occasionally people won't try to hold them to account.
In Trump's case even powerful wealthy people think he went too far, and some of them are terrified of the consequences of a second term.
In as barebones as I can make it, SBF disappeared money from the wealthy with no return of investment. Trump held office and was able to deregulate and reduce taxes for the wealthy allowing their wealth to accumulate.
Your bones are broken then, because that's just straight up not how it works.
Trump was fined because it was a civil trial that he lost. In this instance. His criminal trials are ongoing.
SBF is getting locked up because it was a criminal trial that he lost.
The laws that lead to such actions being classified as they are, are a direct result of the the rich imposing their desires on the world. Trump is a vessel for that to happen for most of them, so he is tolerated, more or less.
The fact that Trump was able to commit the frauds in the first place and only get attention from the law just now is part of the wealthy's SOP
Trump's fines are from his Civil cases. SBF had Criminal charges.
Yeah but that was what I was asking. They both committed fraud. I realize the nature of the fraud was different but was wondering why one was criminal and the other not. They seem to have jumped on Fried pretty quickly and gave him a high penalty. It seems pretty obvious that Trump is a former president of but he's being prosecuted for other criminal charges so it seemed to me there must have been some crucial difference the two, other than their standing.
It's a matter of privilege. Trump had the opportunity to stack the courts in his favor. SBF didn't. The rich rally around Trump because they see him as one of their own. SBF was an interloper. Trump has a rabid fan base willing to commit violence in his name. SBF cloaked himself in effective altruism.
If they both don't rot in jail, then the myth of the social contract in the US will be torn to shreds. I fear what would happen after that.
Trump defrauded the state/city/taxpayers while Bankman defrauded rich investors. Also, the aforementioned civil vs criminal cases.
Trump defrauded rich investors as well, one of the big cases against him right now is about him using a Forbes article to lie about his net worth to get loans.
Thank you.
Well the legal system doesn't exist on paper. Laws are not what the legal system operates on. Allegedly, breaking a law is what allows, but doesn't require, the legal system to be involved at all.
So to answer your question, Sam Bankman is a nobody, that no one likes, and caused a very public number of people to lose a lot of money. His case is a slam-dunk, and has no further implications. Trump is a former president who did exactly the same shit that every other former president has done since Washington. So prosecuting him for his crimes now means that the power brokers of the US empire are now potentially open to prosecution. So of course the two aren't going to be comparable.
So there is no "official reason" because officially the judicial system is based on individual discretion.
I was with you until
"Trump is a former president who did exactly the same shit that every other former president has done since Washington."
Every president since Washington has misused campaign funds to pay for silence on an affair, stolen top secret documents, conducted business fraudulently, and plotted multiple attempts to subvert an election?
I must be missing something. If you take that line out I agree with the rest of your comment.
Your answer doesn't pass my smell test. Yes they can choose NOT to prosecute because, for instance, presidents are too important, but they DID prosecute and they have to say what law was broken and there are sentencing guidelines. If Trump and Fried were both convicted of murder, I'm pretty sure Trump would not just be fined while Fried was jailed. I don't pretend that Trump will ever face serious consequences but I kind of think there IS a legal reasoning behind the differences in the two cases.
Mainly because Trump can start riots with a word and nobody gives a fuck about Sam Bankman Fraud. Obviously the cases are different, but the reason the approach is different is the aforementioned riots and possible civil war.
Yeah, I was looking for the legal reason.
I understand, but that's the reason. Even though legally he may have defrauded a bunch of people, they can't go after him as hard, because he can set the country on fire with a word. That's why no matter what he does, he seems to get away with it. He's not bulletproof. It's just that if you take a shot and miss, you're gonna kill innocent civilians.
SBF was a poor who got money through a fluke. Trump was born a rich and therefore the system is set up to protect him. Poors are not allowed to become riches unless they got it from exploiting the poors. Steal from the rich: that's theft. When you steal from the poor: capitalism.
Moderate Dems don't want to set the precedent of holding powerful politicians accountable, because moderate Dems are terrified if progressives gain power, they'll hold people accountable regardless of the letter by their name.
That's the whole point of being "moderate" occupying the gray area in-between republicans and progressives. And when Republicans are bat shit insane grifters and progressives honestly aren't asking for anything radical...
Well, moderates aren't exactly going to be great people, at least they don't have to be. I'm sure some are just misguided and genuinely think they're helping.
A bunch of text, all of it unrelated to the question.
Trump lost a civil trial, SBF lost a criminal trial.
You can't be sent to jail for breaking civil laws.
So do you think Trump broke no laws doing that stuff?
Because he did.
If you want the explanation on why he had a civil and not a criminal trial, refer to that "bunch of text unrelated to the question".
Sometimes I forget different people need different amounts spelled out for them. I'm sorry I skipped a step and that caused you to become confused.
A president in jail would be disastrous for the reputation of America as a country. That's been my theory as to why he will never face any real consequence. It seems like an elephant in the room. One that probably doesn't even split neatly down partisanship.
In my opinion, not prosecuting a blatant criminal is a much worse look for the country. You can't undo the past, but you can bring him to justice.
Not prosecuting a ex-President for literally trying to both violently and by subterfuge overturn a lawful, democratic election while in office by a position that is literally sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution would officially make America a joke.
Other democracies can uphold their own laws even when the highest official of the land violates their oath of office. If we do not, the idea of America as a democracy is officially dead.
Sorry, but the fact he was even elected the first time made America a complete joke to the rest of the world. It is utterly bizarre watching this all unfold, and that after everything that's happened since, Trump still has a good chance of election AGAIN?
Wtf is going on over there?
Bit of a difference between outright theft and a civil dispute over the value of a property put up for a loan,
Really? Isn't fraudulently paying less in taxes, stealing from the government? I thought Al Capone went to prison for tax avoidance.