What’s your objective definition of someone’s likelihood of reoffending? Further, he still has phone and Internet privileges — does this impulsive man even seem like he can help himself?

I base that estimation on his offense being entirely reliant on a corporation (whose assets are now frozen), his own personal reputation (which is now destroyed), and his crime not alleged to involve violence in any form.

Morally, I think people like Madoff are worse than many gang members or low-level violent criminals. That doesn't change the fact that they are far less of an immediate threat to the people around them, particularly now that they have been exposed. A confidence scam fraudster who has been exposed is a bit like a paraplegic murderer. They may be morally reprehensible, but they're effectively unlikely to reoffend in a few months awaiting trial.

If you honestly would rather live next to the average person arrested for assault or robbery than Bankman-Fried while both await trial, be my guest, but you can probably understand why others might feel differently.

Like many things, cash bail is effectively "discriminatory" in that it tends to hurt poor criminals more than white collar ones. That still doesn't mean discrimination is the primary reason it exists, or that that somehow negates any of its benefits.

> Morally, I think people like Madoff are worse than many gang members or low-level violent criminals

Out of curiosity, why do you think this? Grand theft of wealth based on fraud doesn't strike me as morally worse than gangbanging, armed robbery, human trafficking, etc.

(To detail my own calibration, I would say someone like Henry Kissinger is morally worse than low-level criminals. Typically I think it goes theft < violence < warmongering, etc.)

Off the top of my head I'd look at who their crime affected and to what degree, why the perpetrator did it, whether it was premeditated or done in the spur of the moment, what other options the perpetrator had, etc.

Someone who is intellectually mediocre, grows up around violent scumbags, and ends up robbing others instead of working a job is reprehensible, but I would say less so than a Bernie Madoff who was already wealthy, highly capable, and decided to defraud people of their life savings over decades. Madoff is not someone like Martin Shkreli bullshitting wealthy investors out of some portion of their wealth, he's someone who ruined people's lives.

People often discount "economic" crimes that they can't directly see the harms of, like insurance fraud, welfare fraud, tax cheating, corruption etc. That's easy to do in places like the US, but becomes more obviously problematic in places like Southern Italy or Argentina whose economies have gradually been destroyed by a widespread acceptance of corruption, cheating and "economic" crimes.

Not GP but I might throw in my opinion. While you focused on the crime itself GP focused on the person committing the crime. That way I can agree to both of you. While the crime of fraud is less morally wrong than armed robbery to me, the person committing the robbery very likely has a very different background and less choices. It might seem to be the only way to feed their family or a very natural way as they were grown up with it. While for fraud its about having more and more money, mostly for living a luxury life.

Rationally, this all ought to make sense. But, somehow, people still flock back to the confident fraudsters, even when they know they're fraudsters.

There was a guy in Russia who became famous as the organizer of the largest financial pyramid in the country's history; it all fell apart very publicly, with many people losing their savings, and the guy was on the run for years until finally caught and convicted in yet another highly publicized court. That's it, right?

But literally as soon as he was out of prison, he starts a new company. Same exact name as before. And he openly advertised it as a financial pyramid this time! One year later, he walked away with millions more. And they couldn't even sue him for it because he was completely honest about the finances!

Then he went on to do the same shit but with crypto in other countries: India, China, Nigeria, Peru, Ghana, Thailand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMM_(Ponzi_scheme_company)

Even if he could find victims gullible enough to trust him, he’s under too much scrutiny from other less gullible people. Reoffending is impossible.

Agreed on the basic point that he won't win any more confidence games.

I think the main thing is that we haven't seen what he might do now that he knows for sure that he's (by default) headed for a lifetime in jail.

It seems that before the arrest, he was pretty delusional / "high on his own supply" and believed he was going to somehow talk his way out of trouble, as he'd ostensibly been doing for so long.

So the thought experiment now is: do we believe that there's anything nefarious that he could do now, that he'd stopped himself from doing back when he was still trying to maintain an illusion?

For example, he could have various wallet private keys (secretly?) memorized [1], and could take steps to move the funds to new wallets.

TBH the idea that his (fiat) transactions are limited to $1k is a little laughable for someone who until recently, and perhaps still, has access to billions in crypto.

[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Brainwallet

Don't the bail conditions forbid all financial transactions, even if they are in some shitcoin? Touching his wallets would violate that. So he could move funds around, but risk bankrupting his parents in doing so. The ultra-high bail means it would be hard for him to compensate them.

I wouldn't be surprised if he had access to wallets nobody else knows about with some of the customer money stashed away

It's a possibility. But the way I understand it, he thought he was somehow above board with what he was doing. At least recoverable, eventually above board. Having dark wallets would not have been consistent with that.

Of course, that's what he wants me to think. I'm ready to learn that my take is too naive. But so far, evidence of a bigger plot is missing for me.

In case this concern seemed theoretical: https://twitter.com/wizardofsoho/status/1606610665795379201

What about Jordan Belfort? He had an entire movie named after him and he’s still pulling scams https://youtu.be/RZOHYm2TpVM

Or, Jack Abramoff[1]? History suggests that fraudsters and conmen are more likely than not to re-offend. There is no shortage of people who are more eager to be marks than they would have been before the convictions, because now that they can be part of the redemption story of someone who has high status with their well-known name.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff#Post-release_act...

It wouldnt surprise me if somehow a substantial part of the population is convinced he did nothing wrong, is being prosecuted by the reptiles/deepstate/etc, and would gladly hand him over more money. The past years have shown that we cant rely on common sense.

> are objectively less likely to reoffend while on bail in a way that would harm regular citizens

I'm not so sure that's true... do you have data to support that? I can think of some counter examples pretty easily off the top of my head -- Billy McFarland, Michael Avenatti, etc.

>Do you have data to support this?

Comments like this are really bizarre. It's like asking for "data" that says looking both ways before crossing the street is a good idea and reduces the frequency of pedestrian fatalities. Your two examples further OP's point. Those two people are asshole fraudsters, but they don't present a physical danger to people around them.

> Comments like this are really bizarre. It's like asking for "data" that says looking both ways before crossing the street is a good idea and reduces the frequency of pedestrian fatalities.

Since when is it "bizarre" to ask someone if they've based their assertion off of hard data? I replied to at-w's fairly remarkable claim that white collar criminals are less likely to harm people while out on bail than non-white collar criminals. That assertion is not a forgone conclusion like the wisdom of "look both ways before you cross the street". Clearly it's reasonable to ask the poster if they're basing their assertion off of some hard data.

> Those two people are asshole fraudsters, but they don't present a physical danger to people around them.

We're talking about the propensity to harm others while out on bail. Harm is not limited to physical harm. The two examples I gave were of white collar criminals who continued to defraud/extort others while they were out on bail.

Comments like this are bizarre. If the claim is that a) is objectively true then you'd better have data to back up that claim otherwise your claim is not objective.

“There is no sky fairy controlling the universe”

“BUH BUH BUH WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?”

Asking for data on HN is usually just a stupid rhetorical trick to derail a logical thread.

Logic != Truth

The question was "likely to reoffend". Somehow you reduced this to "present a physical danger". SBF is not accused of physically endangering people, so the term "reoffend" is not a reference to physical violence. It's a reference to defrauding people (the thing he's accused of right now). Your parent already posted examples like Billy McFarland, who immediately go on to defraud more people when they are let out on the street. This very obviously is a danger with SBF as well.

It's hard to believe that the likelihood of a criminal reoffending in the period awaiting trial (what bail relates to) is higher for someone who depends on committing violent crimes to support themselves than someone that's followed around by the media constantly, depends on their now ruined reputation to run their scam, and has never even been alleged to have committed any violent crime?

I believe many/most white collar criminals are morally reprehensible people who often deserve far greater punishment than even violent criminals for the harm that they do. That doesn't change the fact that in the generally brief period awaiting trial, they are far less of an immediate threat to those around them than even a low-level violent criminal.

Oh god Avenatti that scummly little weasel who somehow became the darling of corporate press and twitter and talk shows? I can't believe so many fell for that so badly, there were even "serious" opinion pieces from these hacks out there about how he should run for president. It was obvious just about by looking at him that he was a grifter.

He was the lawyer for Stormy Daniels, the media saw him (and the Daniels case) as a way to finally take down Trump, so of course they didn't look any deeper into who he was than necessary.

They also are objectively more likely to have the means to flee out of jurisdiction. If a criminal is deemed extremely likely to commit violent crime on bail, they simply shouldn't get bail, the amount they pay or are able to should be moot

* * *

Breaking into cars is closer to violent-y crime than financial crimes.

Street crime may be a better phrase.

>They also are objectively more likely to have the means to flee out of jurisdiction.

That is explicitly factored into the decision of whether to grant bail and determining flight risk. It's probably not going out on a limb to say SBF's $250 MILLION dollar bail had something to do with his wealth and the flight risk it presented, and isn't standard procedure.

>If a criminal is deemed extremely likely to commit violent crime on bail, they simply shouldn't get bail, the amount they pay or are able to should be moot

This is also how it works right now. Sometimes established systems have gotten some things right in their thousands of years of development, even when they're not perfect. Presumably nobody's arguing the pudgy crypto fraudster who has never been so much as accused of a violent crime is "extremely likely to commit violent crime on bail."

Didn't he say "sorry" many times, and always did something shitty again afterwards?

* * *

The chance of SBF running a crypto scam to raise money for his defense sounds pretty high, at least from an outsider perspective

You conveniently cite heinous crimes such as robbery and assault.

One third of incarcerated folks in the US are there for possession charges. Not intent to distribute, just possession. No bail hence incarceration. How is a person carrying weed a bigger threat to society than a scammer like SBF?

I think at-w’s point still stands - a neutered fraudster is amongst the least likely to reoffend or pose danger. Now, flight risk might be another matter.

With flight risk being accounted for in his bail being set at $250 million, surrendering his passport, and agreeing to remain confined in his parents' home. Those are incredibly strict bail terms for any crime, and clearly factor in his immense wealth.

I'm not sure the 250$ million is relevant here - he did not have to post anything like that, so if he's willing to throw his parents under the bus and rates his chances of escape highly he can leave without ever paying that bail.

Additionally, an interesting question with regards to money is if he's stashed some of those customer funds somewhere. If he has, then even 250 million wouldn't necessarily be an insurmountable barrier since billions are missing. Of course regardless of whether he has access to such stolen funds he'd never need to post the bail as it's unsecured; he'd either abscond and not pay 250 million, or stay and not need to pay in the first place.

> so if he's willing to throw his parents under the bus and rates his chances of escape highly he can leave without ever paying that bail.

Suppose he owns the $400+ million in Robinhood equity that he, FTX, and others are currently in a legal battle over. That asset would be within the reach of the automatic default judgement in favor of government that comes with bail forfeiture, even if SBF had fled to a country without extradition.

This is a straw man. The person you replied to never suggested that a person carrying weed is a bigger threat than a scammer.

To return to topic: yes, a person arrested for carrying weed is more likely to do the same again while on bail than this guy is to repeat his fraud while on bail. The fact that it makes no sense to incarcerate people for small time weed possession is a completely different matter.

So when exactly do you think SBF stopped commiting crimes?

Was it before he was let out on bail or after?

What makes someone who deals weed keep commiting crimes after they receive bail but with someone like SBF it's different?

If you're buying weed and you trust your supplier who just got bailed then you'll keep buying from him. Don't think anybody is looking to invest with SBF right now so his opportunity to repeat offend is much less.

Let me guess, possession is the last charge for many repeat violent offenders that violates their parole and finally lands them in prison.

This is a common myth. The percentage of people locked up in the US for drug offenses in general is only 20%. The share of those there specifically for possession is much lower still:

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2022.html

Police do make a lot of drug possession arrests, but the actual prison population who are there for possession is nowhere near 33%.

I guess it's a question of personal interpretation - but to me those two numbers aren't different enough to quibble over. Also, given that this is about bail, not convictions, it's at least arguable (right?) that the proportional arrest numbers are more relevant than the proportional incarceration numbers.

In any case: it's clearly a minority, yet a sizable one.

> I guess it's a question of personal interpretation - but to me those two numbers aren't different enough to quibble over.

Which two numbers? The only number I quoted is 20%, and that's for all drug inmates, not just possession. We don't have the numbers for possession, but they're surely much, much lower.

I meant the numbers you quoted. The site you link to does have some numbers on pretrial detention, and by the looks of it drug-related offenses there too are a minority of those jailed, but a sizable one. They're careful to list various caveats, so let's not overinterpret the numbers; there may be overlap or overcounting; and if you're trying to discern possession vs. other drug related offenses surely that's yet another wrinkle which a cursory skim doesn't answer anyhow.

You do realize that saying it is " 20%" do not make it better?

20% includes shooting someone and then getting caught with 10kg of heroin. Nobody gets prison for 0.1g.

20% is not for possession. 20% is all drug-related charges. Many if not most of those are going to be intent to sell.

From the graphic it says 1/3rd of those are unconvicted.

   > One third of incarcerated folks in the US are there for possession charges.

This is a wildly inaccurate stat, where on earth did you get it? The number of people sentenced on just a simple possession charge is minuscule. Almost always, it's because the underlying crime was violating their parole/probation from a different charge in the course of the arrest.

Likes of SBF or Holmes should be punished more harshly. They had access to all the resources in the world, the resources poor people dont even know exist. They were educated from the institutes not everyone can afford. They never had to worry about next meal. They have all the high profile contacts. And what did they choose to do? To fraud people. Your comment simply reeks of elitism. Imagine a poor all clean chap comes to you for a job. You wouldn't offer him any, given the logic in your comment. What will he do next? Commit another crime. Most common people dont commit crime out of choice. They are forced to commit crimes again and again.

In Most cases, it is the society which forces them to do shit. The same is not true for SBF or Holmes. They chose to fraud people out of choice.

Indeed, serious fraudsters can be worse than some violent offenders. But your whole comment is pointless and ignorant because bail is not supposed to be punishment. Bail is to secure the person’s reappearance at court and, especially when it is denied, to protect the public from a dangerous person. Punishment comes after you’re found guilty.

For the poor, bail is punishing and harmful. The difference between that and formal "punishment" after trial is academic.

So is having to contest a criminal trial at all. But the alternative is to have people flee before their trial, or continue to terrorize the public. The right to a speedy trial is the backstop to all this.