Yes she cooperated and pleaded early, but damn, she got off easy compared to SBF.
akerl_ 1 days ago [-]
It turns out sentencing cares whether you’re cooperative and contrite or you stand by having done nothing wrong.
jMyles 1 days ago [-]
...the primary effect of which is that fewer than 4% of criminal cases go to trial, and our prison, parole, and probation systems are full of people who pled to crimes they did not commit, and poison trees of evidence are intentionally and ruthlessly planted without challenge or consideration by a jurist.
9x39 23 hours ago [-]
The majority of cases don’t go to trial because the majority of cases are hopeless for the defendants.
Law-abiding citizens wouldn’t have a 50% recidivism rate.
While it’s admirable to push back against the state, not all defendants earn our sympathy in their plight.
Braxton1980 23 hours ago [-]
>Law-abiding citizens wouldn’t have a 50% recidivism rate.
What if being incarcerated has an affect on this value?
93po 13 hours ago [-]
It unquestionably does - it turns out destroying your job prospects for life, removing a major contributor to a household for years, and destroying family relations in the process lends itself to continuing having strife in your life, or having strife when you previously had none
rayiner 17 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
jMyles 15 hours ago [-]
> The majority of cases don’t go to trial because the majority of cases are hopeless for the defendants.
...but are the lion's share of these hopeless on the basis of the evidence, combined with a fair process and a just, civically-informed legal framework?
A person who is searched pursuant to a prompted canine indication, and found to be in possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine has a "hopeless" case, but they have committed no offense to society that I can recognize, and their inclination to plea to a lesser charge means that the particulars of the search will never be heard by a jurist.
> Law-abiding citizens wouldn’t have a 50% recidivism rate.
This seems like a testable hypothesis, albeit only after a successful completion of the abolitionist movement. I'll bet that, in a society focused on restorative justice and no dependence on a slave economy dressed up as incarceration, that nobody will have a 50% recidivism rate.
> While it’s admirable to push back against the state, not all defendants earn our sympathy in their plight.
Agreed, of course. But there's no justice in taking even the worst in society forcing them to be laborers to make Starbucks packaging. Let's remove the incentive structure first, and decide how to distribute our sympathies second.
mlrtime 19 hours ago [-]
I don't think the answer is more lawyers/judges and court rooms to fill that 96%
jMyles 15 hours ago [-]
...of course not. But dramatically less chargeable conduct, dramatically more robust protections against search and seizure, and the complete removal of the slave labor incentive inherent in prisons might just remove it without further ado.
mlrtime 5 hours ago [-]
>dramatically less chargeable conduct
This is going to be hard to sell. "dramatically" sounds like >50%, and I assume not just old laws on the books that aren't in-forced. So you want to remove >50% of chargeable offenses? What else besides drugs?
david38 10 hours ago [-]
The estimated innocent population is around 9%. A far cry from the majority. This is just populist trash.
Now if you want to make a majority claim about those incarcerated being incarcerated for something which a rich person would go free, that’s something else
dalemhurley 6 hours ago [-]
9% is huge, that is a complete failure, this isn’t some exam, it is people’s lives.
cosmicgadget 1 days ago [-]
Well running an investment firm into the ground is more legal than using deposited funds in an exchange to bail out an investment firm that is being run into the ground.
olalonde 1 days ago [-]
She didn't just run Alameda to the ground. She knew Alameda was using FTX customer funds, which makes her directly complicit. She got off easy because of her cooperation and guilty plea.
arduanika 24 hours ago [-]
No. Alameda and FTX were the same company, in the end. Co-mingled, and no separate governance. Legally speaking, all of the inner circle people ran both companies, and they all knew about the crimes.
The difference is the plea deal.
cosmicgadget 23 hours ago [-]
They were legally the same?
arduanika 23 hours ago [-]
They = the people? Not precisely. Each of the perpetrators did certain things, agreed to certain things, and knew things at certain times. But I was responding to the notion in the parent that CE was just "running an investment firm" whereas SBF was running a company doing different stuff. It turned out to be all one co-mingled entity, contrary to how it was marketed. One company, and all of the main perpetrators knew things about both sides.
cosmicgadget 14 hours ago [-]
> They = the people?
Honestly I wasn't sure what you meant by adding "legally speaking". It seemed to imply there was some legal ruling that both companies were the same. Cause otherwise imho there is no difference "they ran both companies" and "they ran both companies as a matter of law".
paulpauper 1 days ago [-]
she pocketed nothing, lived modestly (her complices earned much more) and was invaluable to the case.
rasz 13 hours ago [-]
Didnt she live with the rest of those frauds on tropical island in a sex commune?
dalemhurley 6 hours ago [-]
Really? all the media reports contradict this statement.
uejfiweun 1 days ago [-]
Eh, I am pretty sure Trump is gonna end up pardoning SBF. It just seems like the sort of thing that is going to happen.
olalonde 1 days ago [-]
Not sure what he would gain from that. The crypto community largely backed him in the last election, and pardoning SBF would seriously piss them off.
duskwuff 1 days ago [-]
> Not sure what he would gain from that.
A convenient distraction, perhaps.
unfunco 1 days ago [-]
> Not sure what he would gain from that.
What? It's a bribe, he gains money. He doesn't care about pissing anyone off, he's (probably) not running for reelection, he cares about money, it's really that simple.
lokar 1 days ago [-]
He also cares about normalizing financial fraud, establishing that it’s no big deal.
kingofmen 1 days ago [-]
Ok, but does SBF still control enough money that Trump would care about it?
justinclift 22 hours ago [-]
> Not sure what he would gain from that.
Might be more like "what the people advising Trump would gain".
paulpauper 1 days ago [-]
Trump already got donor money and he's a lame duck. 'Pissing off crypto community' does not factor highly into his decision making processes. Pardoning him would probably help crypto go up.
perihelions 1 days ago [-]
> "Not sure what he would gain from that."
Besides the ~$1 million a head he's openly selling[0] pardons for?
Why wouldn't he pardon a white-collar felon fraudster? This president has pardoned dozens of those[1]—frauds who had no reason at all to be deserving of clemency, other than being incredibly rich. He's pardoned fraudsters who defrauded thousands of victims[2]. He's pardoned a fraudster convicted of fraud, who committed fraud again, and he pardoned them a second time[3]. There are no limits.
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/29/us/politics/trump-david-g... ("Trump Frees Fraudster Just Days Into Seven-Year Prison Sentence / David Gentile had been found guilty for his role in what prosecutors described as a $1.6 billion scheme that defrauded thousands of investors.")
It is disappointing to me that people can look at the list of infamous people he has already pardoned, who have paid him, and then expect that he won't continue acting on trend, just because some shallow-book manipulable prediction market, which is primarily a money laundering tool for event fixers, tells us that it's "not likely".
olalonde 24 hours ago [-]
I think that because of my own judgment, not because the market told me. Also, it seems unlikely that someone would burn money to manipulate this market as there's nothing to gain from it.
By the way, Trump literally said he won't pardon SBF[0]. It seems money is not the only factor he considers when handing out pardons.
> By the way, Trump literally said he won't pardon SBF[0].
So Trump will pardon SBF?
epistasis 1 days ago [-]
Wha backlash? Trump pardoned a Honduran ex-president convicted of smuggling tons of drugs, right in the midst of using the military to bomb boats for unproven drug smuggling, and kidnapped Maduro presumably because of drugs too (or was it oil?). Zero repercussions except for futile anger from internet weirdos like me.
This administration seems to relish getting away with things that would destroy any other presidency.
olalonde 23 hours ago [-]
The backlash was relatively mild because few of his supporters personally see themselves as victims of the Honduran ex-president. That's very different from SBF—almost everyone who invested in crypto at the time hates him, not to mention the actual FTX customers.
epistasis 23 hours ago [-]
Everybody hates Trump, he's the least popular president ever.
Unless these crypto folks have massive money and are using it right now to pay Trump tk not pardon SBF, what would they do? What backlash could crypto do? It's not like he can unpardon Trump. Crypto just joins the long line of people who fell for it again and nothing happens.
What, is a Republican going to vote against Trump? Hah! Impeachment? What trouble could crypto cause for Trump? Even if they could cause trouble, Trump would just make up charges and send the DOJ after crypto.
olalonde 23 hours ago [-]
I mean, even his own son would probably be pissed at him. Not to mention pretty much everyone in his crypto entourage, which is a lot of people.
epistasis 16 hours ago [-]
You are avoiding my questions. What does their anger matter? Concretely, how could that impact Trump?
olalonde 15 hours ago [-]
Like most people, he probably understands the value of keeping a few friends and allies close, even if it's purely self-interest. At Trump's scale, some relationships are worth billions, so a bribe of a few million can be a poor trade-off if it risks burning a high-value relationship.
epistasis 7 hours ago [-]
Trump is not a normal person with normal friends.
Sure some relationships might be worth it, but whose? Trump already got the votes, which is what let him avoid prosecution for insurrection, mishandling of classified documents, etc. etc.
What friend or relationship would he lose for pardoning SBF? It has to be a billionaire, because he respects billionaires, or it has to be somebody paying home more than SBF to keep SBF in jail. What billionaire would risk their relationship with Trump in order to express displeasure about pardoning SBF? Wha person would pay more than SBF to keep SBF imprisoned?
Again and again Trump burns people that supported him. There is zero loyalty, everything is purely transactional.
22 hours ago [-]
munksbeer 24 hours ago [-]
By the way, have any more boats been bombed since the US ousted Maduro?
The reduced sentences for Ellison, Wang, and Singh make sense in light of their cooperation. This is how plea deals work. The conviction of SBF seems simple in retrospect, but when the SDNY inked these deals, they did not yet know how just easy SBF would make their case for them, with all the tampering and perjury and obstinance.
Nonetheless, we should not be fooled by a sort of "Svengali defense", where Caroline or the others claim that they were beguiled by a dark charismatic genius who forced them into the crimes. The entire inner circle is super guilty of flagrant crimes. The shorter sentences are an artifact of plea bargains, and not a sign of lesser guilt.
tim333 17 hours ago [-]
Dunno. If you have a bad boss telling the employees to do bad stuff I blame the boss mostly.
yellow_lead 1 days ago [-]
Is it true she still owes billions to the federal government?
wmf 24 hours ago [-]
$11B!
Mistletoe 22 hours ago [-]
I’m still amazed Sam Trabucco got absolutely nothing. Stepped away in August 2022 as Co-CEO with Ellison and we are supposed to believe he was innocent and knew nothing?
ripped_britches 1 days ago [-]
comma in the title would be nice!
SilverElfin 1 days ago [-]
> Without denying the Commission’s allegations, Ellison, Wang, and Singh consented to the entry of final judgments, subject to court approval, in which they agreed to be permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and to 5-year conduct-based injunctions. Ellison also consented to a 10-year officer-and-director bar, and Wang and Singh consented to 8-year officer-and-director bars.
That’s a really light sentence for someone who defrauded people out of billions. Meanwhile many languish in prison for a lot less. It’s a two tier justice system, and the wealthy can get out of consequences with the right connections or donations.
Next up, Elizabeth Holmes - once her family donates enough to the MAGA PAC.
moralestapia 1 days ago [-]
100%
Even if you "cooperate", that shouldn't be an 80-90% sentence reduction. She was part of the fraud, consciously, for years!
cortesoft 1 days ago [-]
Even if we all agree this is true, you still have to think practically. If we don't give a big incentive to turn on your co-conspirators, no one will turn and you might not be able to convict any of them.
moralestapia 1 days ago [-]
>Can someone think of the criminals?
SBF was toast with or without Ellison's testimony.
It should be the other way around. You get 10 years. You don't want to cooperate? Great! You get another 10.
edmundsauto 1 days ago [-]
As I understand it, intent matters a lot, and that is typically through the testimony of people who had access to SBF in an environment where he was comfortable speaking candidly.
Those people are often accomplices. Sometimes the medium large fish get off if they chop up the big fish.
There are the way things should be, and there are the way things are.
paulpauper 1 days ago [-]
SBF got no more than 25. there is no way she would have gotten more than that.
xnx 1 days ago [-]
> That’s a really light sentence for someone who defrauded people out of billions
I don't excuse anything that she did, but didn't 98% of investors get everything back with interest?
bz_bz_bz 1 days ago [-]
Investors? No.
Customers? They were paid the cash value of their crypto holdings at the time of bankruptcy. Thanks to a massive bull run in crypto between bankruptcy and payout, customers were able to be paid back in “full” even with the fraud. However, when BTC is sitting at $60k and your missing BTC is being paid back at $17k, you’re not exactly going to be feeling giddy.
nullc 1 days ago [-]
And that price at the time of the bankruptcy was artificially deflated by FTX dumping customer assets to try to cover up their fraud.
kingofmen 1 days ago [-]
They did, but not through any virtue or skill on her part. That was just the plain luck of Bitcoin happening to go way way up before the bankruptcy estate paid out using what it had, and the court that sentenced her couldn't know that would happen and if it somehow had, should not have taken it into account. You wouldn't advocate a lighter sentence for murder if the bullet had miraculously been struck by lightning on its way to the target's skull and thereby missed.
decimalenough 1 days ago [-]
Well, actually you would, because that would change it from murder to attempted murder.
estearum 1 days ago [-]
Only by accident of BTC's appreciation while the fraud+bankruptcy were underway. Not sure that should be a mitigating factor.
tim333 17 hours ago [-]
Smaller depositors (<$50k) got back 118% of the dollar value of their holdings at the time of the bankruptcy. I was one of those and got paid out a few months ago. The larger depositors and investors were still haggling in court last time I checked over who gets what.
decimalenough 1 days ago [-]
Maybe, on paper, some day in the indeterminate future, and likely without interest.
For comparison, MtGox went tits up twelve years ago in 2014 and they're still figuring out repayments for its BTC holders, which is both a hell of a lot simpler than FTX's grab bag of own tokens etc and has gone up a zillion percent since 2014.
arduanika 1 days ago [-]
The customers were not fully repaid, except in an artificial accounting sense using post-crash marks. Nevertheless, the recovery was far more successful than most people expected at the time.
cosmicgadget 1 days ago [-]
I wanna say that was the FTX story, not Alameda.
arduanika 1 days ago [-]
It was all one company in the end, through co-mingling and lack of controls.
moralestapia 1 days ago [-]
Criminal law deals with intent not with outcomes.
Hence why "attempted murder" is a thing.
paulpauper 1 days ago [-]
they got back 100% at a lower price, around 20k per btc I think.
paulpauper 1 days ago [-]
That’s a really light sentence for someone who defrauded people out of billions.
She profited very little compared to the others and was invaluable for the case
cosmicgadget 1 days ago [-]
Future federal reserve chair Caroline Ellison.
_boffin_ 1 days ago [-]
Read this and started to laugh and then got sad.
DANmode 1 days ago [-]
“Hey, she’s got great experience in that world, and is obviously very smart!”
sam_lowry_ 22 hours ago [-]
Also her parents are economics professors
paulpauper 1 days ago [-]
future linkedin influencer,future fail-forwarder
StanislavPetrov 24 hours ago [-]
Only after she finishes filming the next Lord of The Rings trilogy.
sizzle 24 hours ago [-]
Precious?
leshokunin 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
mlrtime 19 hours ago [-]
Just add in AI and you hit internet karma jackpot.
olalonde 1 days ago [-]
She's probably one of the most hated person in crypto...
arwt 1 days ago [-]
There are hundreds of shady crypto projects in the world right now, each one shadier than the last.
World order is out of the door, and has been for a while -- they are all probably fighting amongst themselves to get her onto their board ASAP.
sizzle 24 hours ago [-]
Read her archived blog she was into freaky stuff
clarkrinker 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
Rendered at 06:24:42 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Law-abiding citizens wouldn’t have a 50% recidivism rate.
While it’s admirable to push back against the state, not all defendants earn our sympathy in their plight.
What if being incarcerated has an affect on this value?
...but are the lion's share of these hopeless on the basis of the evidence, combined with a fair process and a just, civically-informed legal framework?
A person who is searched pursuant to a prompted canine indication, and found to be in possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine has a "hopeless" case, but they have committed no offense to society that I can recognize, and their inclination to plea to a lesser charge means that the particulars of the search will never be heard by a jurist.
> Law-abiding citizens wouldn’t have a 50% recidivism rate.
This seems like a testable hypothesis, albeit only after a successful completion of the abolitionist movement. I'll bet that, in a society focused on restorative justice and no dependence on a slave economy dressed up as incarceration, that nobody will have a 50% recidivism rate.
> While it’s admirable to push back against the state, not all defendants earn our sympathy in their plight.
Agreed, of course. But there's no justice in taking even the worst in society forcing them to be laborers to make Starbucks packaging. Let's remove the incentive structure first, and decide how to distribute our sympathies second.
This is going to be hard to sell. "dramatically" sounds like >50%, and I assume not just old laws on the books that aren't in-forced. So you want to remove >50% of chargeable offenses? What else besides drugs?
Now if you want to make a majority claim about those incarcerated being incarcerated for something which a rich person would go free, that’s something else
The difference is the plea deal.
Honestly I wasn't sure what you meant by adding "legally speaking". It seemed to imply there was some legal ruling that both companies were the same. Cause otherwise imho there is no difference "they ran both companies" and "they ran both companies as a matter of law".
A convenient distraction, perhaps.
What? It's a bribe, he gains money. He doesn't care about pissing anyone off, he's (probably) not running for reelection, he cares about money, it's really that simple.
Might be more like "what the people advising Trump would gain".
Besides the ~$1 million a head he's openly selling[0] pardons for?
Why wouldn't he pardon a white-collar felon fraudster? This president has pardoned dozens of those[1]—frauds who had no reason at all to be deserving of clemency, other than being incredibly rich. He's pardoned fraudsters who defrauded thousands of victims[2]. He's pardoned a fraudster convicted of fraud, who committed fraud again, and he pardoned them a second time[3]. There are no limits.
[0] https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-presidential-pardo... ("Inside the New Fast Track to a Presidential Pardon / Lobbyists close to Trump say their going rate to advocate for a pardon is $1 million")
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executi... ("List of recipients of executive clemency from Trump")
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/29/us/politics/trump-david-g... ("Trump Frees Fraudster Just Days Into Seven-Year Prison Sentence / David Gentile had been found guilty for his role in what prosecutors described as a $1.6 billion scheme that defrauded thousands of investors.")
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/16/us/politics/trump-fraudst... ("Trump Sets Fraudster Free From Prison for a Second Time")
> "The crypto community largely backed him in the last election"
Gee golly; I wonder why.
FWIW, prediction markets don't seem to believe he will be pardoned either[0].
[0] https://polymarket.com/event/who-will-trump-pardon-before-20...
By the way, Trump literally said he won't pardon SBF[0]. It seems money is not the only factor he considers when handing out pardons.
[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-not-pardon-sam-bankman-...
So Trump will pardon SBF?
This administration seems to relish getting away with things that would destroy any other presidency.
Unless these crypto folks have massive money and are using it right now to pay Trump tk not pardon SBF, what would they do? What backlash could crypto do? It's not like he can unpardon Trump. Crypto just joins the long line of people who fell for it again and nothing happens.
What, is a Republican going to vote against Trump? Hah! Impeachment? What trouble could crypto cause for Trump? Even if they could cause trouble, Trump would just make up charges and send the DOJ after crypto.
Sure some relationships might be worth it, but whose? Trump already got the votes, which is what let him avoid prosecution for insurrection, mishandling of classified documents, etc. etc.
What friend or relationship would he lose for pardoning SBF? It has to be a billionaire, because he respects billionaires, or it has to be somebody paying home more than SBF to keep SBF in jail. What billionaire would risk their relationship with Trump in order to express displeasure about pardoning SBF? Wha person would pay more than SBF to keep SBF imprisoned?
Again and again Trump burns people that supported him. There is zero loyalty, everything is purely transactional.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-35th-strike-alleged-drug-boa...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sam-bankman-fried-says-donate...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/22/ftx-crypt...
But it's true: master has given Dobby a sock
Nonetheless, we should not be fooled by a sort of "Svengali defense", where Caroline or the others claim that they were beguiled by a dark charismatic genius who forced them into the crimes. The entire inner circle is super guilty of flagrant crimes. The shorter sentences are an artifact of plea bargains, and not a sign of lesser guilt.
That’s a really light sentence for someone who defrauded people out of billions. Meanwhile many languish in prison for a lot less. It’s a two tier justice system, and the wealthy can get out of consequences with the right connections or donations.
Next up, Elizabeth Holmes - once her family donates enough to the MAGA PAC.
Even if you "cooperate", that shouldn't be an 80-90% sentence reduction. She was part of the fraud, consciously, for years!
SBF was toast with or without Ellison's testimony.
It should be the other way around. You get 10 years. You don't want to cooperate? Great! You get another 10.
Those people are often accomplices. Sometimes the medium large fish get off if they chop up the big fish.
There are the way things should be, and there are the way things are.
I don't excuse anything that she did, but didn't 98% of investors get everything back with interest?
For comparison, MtGox went tits up twelve years ago in 2014 and they're still figuring out repayments for its BTC holders, which is both a hell of a lot simpler than FTX's grab bag of own tokens etc and has gone up a zillion percent since 2014.
Hence why "attempted murder" is a thing.
She profited very little compared to the others and was invaluable for the case
World order is out of the door, and has been for a while -- they are all probably fighting amongst themselves to get her onto their board ASAP.