Hacker News Reader

Comment by insane_dreamer | Hacker News Reader

Nah, it's more that you do not fuck with the money system. SBF is learning that same lesson.

Jeff Skilling (Enron) served 12 years in jail for insider trading and securities.

Not saying that Skilling, Maddoff or SBF shouldn't have gone to jail. They deserved it. But I do find it interesting that financial crimes can tend to be the most harshly judged, likely because of who they impact (the people with money) and because they cause distrust of the financial system as a whole.

> Madoff stole $20-35B

Not to defend Madoff, but it's not like he made off with that money himself, so I'm not sure "stole" is the correct term. Most of that money went to investors -- it just went to a different set of investors than the ones who had put that money in (the nature of a Ponzi scheme).

View on HN

> Nah, it's more that you do not fuck with the money system.

Isn't a common critique of the justice system that white-collar crime gets you less prison time (in nicer jails) than being for ex a drug dealer?

Plenty of finance scammers and conmen who stole millions get <5-10yr sentences

yes, unless you're a big enough finance scammer that you stole from really rich people (most scammers who steal millions don't get it from the very rich)

People have gone to jail for longer for selling weed, I think the argument that finacial crimes get you longer prison sentences is absurd.

I didn't say financial crimes in general, I specifically said financial crimes on a level that impact a large number of very rich people.

But even then the times aren't longer than someone who gets caught with a 100 grams of coke. Skilling got 12 years for a financial fraud so heinous the whole system was re-regulated. You get that for selling crack on the corner.

There’s no question that the “war on drugs” sentencing is ridiculously out of proportion with the actual harm done, especially if you’re not white or upper class. I was making a comparison between types of financial crimes.

I mean if you’re saying bigger financial crimes get larger than smaller ones, ok?

In those cases it's not about how much they stole but who they stole from?

Steal the pensions and other retirement funds of millions? At worst, slap on the wrist.

Steal a single dollar from a single billionaire? Hope you like solitary, buddy.

Yup, these numbers are high, but just check out decades of wage theft and you realize it's only legal to steal from the poor.

Hasn't the Trustee recovered 90% of the money invested? Phantom returns were ignored; at the time of the arrest the phantom returns were considered money lost.

> Not to defend Madoff, but it's not like he made off with that money himself, so I'm not sure "stole" is the correct term.

What else would the term be? Did you always feel that Robin Hood was being unfairly maligned when he was described as robbing from the rich and giving to the poor?

It's the same level as saying "tech companies stole from the populace". Which is ethically correct but legally wrong. I guess that's the distinction GP wants to make.

cheat, lie

I expect SBF will be out soonish. He's exactly the sort of white collar crook that Trump would pardon.

I think there's almost no chance. SBF is a perfect example of someone to throw the book at. He's effectively Madoff 2.0, the people everyone from the lowly to the elite hate.

Ross Ulbricht is a very unique, interesting case. I don't for a second believe that Trump has any moral imperative with pardoning him, but his sentence for the crimes he was prosecuted for was very clearly unjustly large in an extensively murky case. There's also a whole slew of benefits to Trump for pardoning him - it's largely perceived as very pro-crypto, pro-libertarian (ironic), etc.

In any sane democracy I would agree with you. But this POTUS has pardoned 1500 people that actively participates in an insurrection, some of who hurt and even killed police officers. He's pardoned a the Dread Pirate Roberts.

All of those people were perfect people to throw the book at.

For the next 2 years all bets are off.

From what I read, the Ulbricht pardon was part of a deal at the Libertarian National Convention. So it's just business as usual.

Broken clocks and all that. I entirely agree that he may have a potential muder conviction on his case, but they instead threw the book at him for a much lesser crime for a way too large sentence. Especially if we compare it to the War on Drugs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com