Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> Everybody in crypto is a fraudster so investors and depositors all deserve to be wiped out by a scammer?

Nobody deserves to be wiped out. But anyone wiped out in crypto is on their own. They chose to sidestep centuries of knowledge on financial regulation. If they want their money, they need to pay for lawyers.

> and he should walk free?

The wheels of justice grind slowly but fine. The day after any fraud, HN is filled with conclusions that the fraudster will walk free. (Holmes until the day of her sentencing.)

SBF is almost certain to be charged. It just won’t happen this week.

View on HN

> The wheels of justice grind slowly but fine. The day after any fraud, HN is filled with conclusions that the fraudster will walk free. (Holmes until the day of her sentencing.)

This is part of the problem, is it not? There are tiers of justice. Law and order types shriek about how none of us are safe because presumptively innocent people who shoplift or jump turnstiles are not kept in cages before their trial. Meanwhile, you can steal billions of dollars or forge medical data and you're not only walking free, but invited to speak at glamorous conferences.

> you can steal billions of dollars or forge medical data and you're not only walking free, but invited to speak at glamorous conferences

Plenty of felons speak at conferences? And again, you’re asking for instantaneous indictment. That’s not how competent legal systems work.

The indictment I'm asking for is no more instantaneous than is standard for low-level arrestees.

Low level arrestees don't get indicted, generally; indictments aren't required in most states even for felonies (unlike the federal system) and some states have entirely abolished indictment and criminal grand juries, so indictments tend to only happen for federal and a fraction of state felonies, biased toward more major felonies in the states that use the system.

And when someone is accused of minor low-level offenses, prosecutors aren't worried about losing the ability to prosecute potentially multiple major crimes, and to lose access to any restitution and criminal forefeiture actions associated with them, by premature prosecution of lesser included offenses blocking the more major ones under double jeopardy rules.

> because presumptively innocent people who shoplift or jump turnstiles are not kept in cages before their trial.

But they are, and therein lie the hypocrisy. If you're wealthy, then you get the opportunity to turn yourself in after weeks or months to get your affairs in order, while regular people who allegedly commit minor crimes get a gun pointed at them, roughed up, arrested, and shoved in a cell for who knows how long until they are finally informed that they have a bench warrant out on them for something that happened in 2017.

> until they are finally informed that they have a bench warrant out on them for something that happened in 2017

If you’re wealthy and ignore warrants until a traffic stop, this happens to you too.

IANAL and this isn't legal advice, but the example warrants I found issue by a state government only command the officer of the state it happens in to perform the arrest. I'm not certain an officer out of state from the offense would be commanded to serve the warrant, rather than just have the option. And the rich often perform their shenanigans somewhere else so they don't shit where they eat.

See an example arrest warrant http://www.georgetowncriminaldefenselawyer.com/wp-content/up...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com