Hacker News Reader

Comment by runako | Hacker News Reader

> why even go after her for (relative) pennies?

Because (potentially) stealing $6 million is still a very large crime in the absolute sense, even if it is smaller than other related crimes. Because it would be bad to alert white-collar criminals to the fact that they can escape prosecution by not being the largest participant in the criminal enterprise. Because $6 million is roughly 1000x larger (not a typo) than the typical bank robbery, which carries a 20-year sentence, and we don't advocate for non-prosecution of $500 bank robberies. Because it's only fair in a justice system that routinely imprisons people for stealing much smaller amounts.

View on HN

And because she's a juicy target for flipping on the rest of them. In the end she's going to make off much better than the rest, in all likelihood.

Maybe? I would imagine their case is pretty strong without her flipping on the rest of them. She will get some credit for pleading guilty, but she was CEO of a criminal enterprise while it was actively involved in criminal activity. She's not going to die old in prison, but in all likelihood she will do at least 10-15 years.

As things stand today, she could be sentenced to 110 years for what she's already pled to; she's really got to make the prosecutors happy if she ever wants to live outside again.

There is often lots of evidence in fraud cases of what happened, but the mens rea of knowingly committing fraud is bolstered by having a close partner testify. It can otherwise be difficult for the jury to differentiate negligent incompetence from willful fraud, especially in complex scenarios like most financial fraud.

If I've learned anything by reading Popehat (Ken White), it's that the "faces up to X years in prison" lines you see in news articles are totally uninformative - there's a complex set of sentencing guidelines that determines the actual range of possibilities. I don't know what that range is in this case, but I very much doubt the top end is anywhere close to 110 years.

Edit: One such article for illustrative purposes: https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc... . In this case, the news-headline number is "up to 77 years" and the plausible range Popehat calculates is 2-2.5 years.

IANAL but I understand the top end quotes (110 years in this case) are typically available to judges by ordering sentences to run consecutively.

She's pled to a set of felonies that each carry stiff penalties. A judge would apparently be within the law and federal guidelines to decide that an appropriate sentence is somewhere between the sentence for any one of the charges and below the sentence for running all the sentences consecutively. It's really easy to get sentencing guidelines to arrive at over 100 years for multiple felonies, if you stipulate consecutive sentences.

One notable exception to the typical kid-gloves treatment of financial crime syndicates was Bernie Madoff, who was sentenced to 150 years, the top of the sentencing guidelines.

Madoff refused to cooperate.

Depends what she did in her capacity at Alameda Research - she could've done a lot of bad things even if she wasn't ultimately paid out as much.

Give her a great deal to make her spill every last detail on camera after rejoicing her sentence will be tiny. Then pass all the details and recordings to the Bahamas and let them extradite her back to fox hill prison to rot for decades. That's what I'd do. "The deal was with the DoJ.... not the Bahamas!!!"

The whole reason that you can make deals is because the other party believes you’ll hold up your bargain. Is it really worth giving up the ability of the DoJ to make all future deals, just to punish someone even more heavily one time?

If doing it once means they gave up the ability, that's already done. DoJ did this exact thing to Paul Le Roux. Got him to admit to murders in exchange for immunity. Now he's subject to extradition to the countries they happened in. His next stop is the Philippines.

The DoJ doesn't typically claim as far as I know that they will stop prosecution in other countries.

You mean in 2045 the USG might extradite him [1]?

I wouldn't call ~20 years into the _future_ "already done". But definitely think long and hard about any agreements you sign in an adversarial situation.

TBH, the guys not even an American so I don't think he really has a right to stay in the country after his sentence is over.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux#Trial_of_Le_Roux

OK so it's fine for DoJ to admit into public record admissions of criminal activity that can be prosecuted internationally, so long as it will be used at some point in the future and it hasn't yet been done? Apply this to Caroline. They can put it into the record so the Bahamas can use it. You say it hasn't been "already done" once they do that so everything is good. Appears we agree.

Allow Caroline to testify in exchange for lenience. Share that... so that at some point in the future she can be extradited. All good now! As far as I can tell your criticism has no practical bearing on achieving these ends.

USA's DoJ isn't in charge of other countries DoJ / equivalents. If you're going to confess to a crime you committed outside of the USA you might want to get that country also to sign onto immunity.

Or you might want to be confessing to a country you're a resident of so that you have actual standing to oppose being extradited.

Agree, which brings me full circle. Offer her a short course followed by her fate in the Bahamas. "USA DoJ isn't in charge of other countries" -- too bad so sad, what happens in fox hill stays in fox hill.

Maybe there is some way she can avoid extradition from the US, I'm not sure, but I have a feeling such a greedy soul could be lured to some other country in promise of riches only to be escorted by men with badges for a nice cruise for a Caribbean vacation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com