CoinDesk, Inc. Files Motion to Unseal Names of SBF's Additional Bail Sureties [pdf] | Hacker News Reader

CoinDesk, Inc. Files Motion to Unseal Names of SBF's Additional Bail Sureties [pdf]

ia801508.us.archive.org

110 points1vuio0pswjnm750 comments

I wonder how often such motions pass. It's obvious CoinDesk wants it so they can plaster the names on their website for views, so how does this weigh against a reasonable measure of privacy? These people haven't done anything illegal by signing sureties.

Not everything bad is illegal. This guy screwed a lot of people over, bailing him out (especially considering the price tag) was bullshit and the public deserves to know who thinks he should be out living a normal live and is willing to fork over the cash for it.

Pre-trial detainment is definitionally not intended to be a punishment, but rather a means of ensuring a party is present at trial.

Nah they place all sorts of restrictions that have nothing to do with helping show up at trial. For instance they may require you not use weed or an occasional glass of wine even though there's basically no material effect of such use on your showing up.

>Even though there's basically no material effect of such use on your showing up.

Disagree. There are plenty of correlations between intoxication and appearing at a certain place at a certain time in a condition of sound mind.

The order is rarely against intoxication but rather consumption. Consuming a glass of wine and not getting intoxicated would violate many of these orders.

Are those restrictions common in cases that don't allegedly involve intoxication? For the most part, the federal restrictions I've seen usually have a purported connection to the criminal activity.

This is pedanticism. When people don’t drink wine they never get drunk. Period.

That's a lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-brewery_syndrome

How can alcohol consumption not lead to intoxication?

Society has decided that for most people, low-level intoxication is no big deal, but I’d argue it is for people accused of crimes.

Even one beer could make fleeing just appealing enough.

And also ensuring that the party does not collude with accomplices to hide money and/or evidences. I'm not totally confident the bail's terms would keep SBF from doing that.

That's a good point, but if that were a concern the judge should've denied bail

This is a non-sequitur. The definition of what bail is and why does not address any point in my comment. It’s just a condescension allowing you to pretend you’re right about something without pushing back against my point.

The guy had a huge bail and it was paid by third parties. People have a right to know who.

I am saying he’s not guilty of any crimes yet (though he likely will be soon).

Beyond reasonable restrictions to his behavior (monitoring to make sure he isn’t actively committing further crimes), he does have the right to live a normal life. That’s why we have trials and sentence people after the conviction (in other words, the punishment doesn’t even start until we decide it’s fair, that’s a cornerstone of our system).

You are implying that he is avoiding a punishment, which he is not.

You can argue in general cash bail creates bad incentives and is inherently unfair (I agree), but that’s a separate argument and is best discussed relative to all cases not just this one.

I think you're not addressing the original point again, at least as I understood it.

What you're saying is spot on of course, but they're not asking for the people in question to be put on trial. They just want the names of the people to be unsealed.

To what end? Put on trial in the court of public opinion? Likely be harassed? Receive death threats?

The only end this would serve is to give people a circus while they wait for the trial.

Kevin O’Leary may be one…he’s been supporting SBF even through the indictment.

Has he? From what I've seen, he backpedaled almost immediately. Everyone just seems pissed at him for taking $15M to be a spokesperson, but the moment FTX imploded he was calling for regulation and saying that no investors will be touching crypto exchanges till then.

If he's actually been supporting SBF, I'd be curious to know.

Watch his testimony before Congress about FTX. He says in no uncertain terms that the cause of the collapse was Binance. He's also stated early on in the collapse that he would back SBF again. He's a paid shill.

I mean CZ did sell FTX Tokens didn't he? Add on that the main competitor of FTX dumped FTX Tokens on exchanges which drove down the price.

Now we're moving the goalposts into a separate discussion. The question was whether or not O'Leary supported SBF post collapse.

Thanks for pointing out O’Leary’s testimony. I hadn’t heard it.

Have you watched the testimony? I encourage you to watch it. It's not just that he said those things, it's that he omitted much of the rest.

As a third party observer his responses were just absolutely baffling. Whenever blame was pointed at Sam he seemed to say some variation "we need more data" or "we need <my brand> of regulation" or deflecting to Binance/CZ while not giving Binance the same benefit of "we need more data" that he gave to Sam.

I've come to question if O'Leary is to SBF as Jeffry Picower was to Madoff. An entity who perhaps secretly knew but can never be proven to know and just looks like another victim.

> CZ did sell FTX Tokens

Because he was concerned they were insolvent and were using customer funds to cover trading losses and buy penthouses.

Turns out they were insolvent and using customer funds to cover trading losses and buying penthouses.

Unless CZ held a gun to SBFs head and made him lever up, lose billions then double down, take customer funds to the casino and try to win back $10billion then its kinda hard to blame CZ.

Isn't SBF responsible for Kevin losing a decent chunk of money?

How can you support somebody who loses you money? Does Kevin really believe SBF did it all on accident/got in over his head/didn't know he messed up until it was too late?

As far as I can see, SBF paid Kevin to be a spokesman for FTX, and he lost that money when FTX went down. I don't think he had personal investments in FTX beyond his reputation.

Another request by The Associated Press, Bloomberg L.P., The Financial Times Ltd., CNBC LLC, Reuters News & Media Inc., Dow Jones & Co., Inc., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, Insider, Inc., and WP Company LLC, publisher of The Washington Post (collectively, the “News Organizations”).

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.59...

A week earlier:

https://ia801508.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.5...

Same day:

https://ia801508.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.5...

Do the news organisations know, they just aren't allowed to publish it?

Or do they not know at all?

They don't know. If they found out (via a leak, not via doing something explicitly illegal themselves like hacking), they would be allowed to publish the name even with the current court order. Basic 1st amendment precedent.

Kinda odd that they care so much then - like it's probably just some rich friends of SBF who were happy to put money up for an old friend, but didn't want their names plastered all over the news.

Can't know until you find out though.

Old friend? The guys 20-something. How does he have "old friends" that can spring $250M for him overnight?

He's out on a personal recognizance bond. Nobody put up $250M

Isn't the point of journalism to find out what's happening instead of making assumptions about what's probably happening?

That’s exactly what’s at the core of the request — if it was some rich friends of SBF, maybe they’d be happy to gift him the money — but the requirement is that the invidividuals providing the sureity be sufficiently at arm’s length that they would be able to influence him not to flee - so that they could get their money back.

For all we know at this point, they could be co-conspirators.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com