-
the article states that the judge specifically excluded from consideration the outcome for creditors of the bankruptcy.
so yeah - he's got 25 years for what is effectively a victimless crime. and meanwhile similar shit goes on all over the place, just different people and different rules.
I agree that the sentence is absurdly harsh. Enron guy got 12 years. Phillip Green got ummm.... nothing.
ChasnotRobert-
he's got 25 years for what is effectively a victimless crime
As the article speculates, that's certainly how SBF saw it. Seeing it that way was the biggest part of the problem, if the article is at all accurate bout SBF's way of thinking. And it was only "effectively victimless" through luck, because the crypto market was back up again at the time the liquidation was done, and because FTX and Almeida trading activity having been frozen stopped things from getting even worse. Since a run on crypto was what caught FTX out, the sheer luck of things not having been much worse means that "effectively victimless" is a terrible excuse. I think the key phrases from the article are "numb to risk", "willingness to expose others to risk without their consent" and "willing to flip a coin that might destroy the world".
The sentence is probably unduly harsh, but "victimless crime" is as bad a reason for saying that as "other people are doing this shit and getting away with it".
itsbruce
He's an amoral chancer, but his sentencing should be revised. The judge can't have considered that the creditors might get all their money back.