Did you miss the detail where the judge that set his bail conditions had her husband advise for FTX? Or the part where he was NOT forbidden to touch a computer?

Or how he was seen working at the lounge at one airport on a computer, during his first class private flight back to the US?

Maybe because the crimes were not computer related in nature? For example Kevin Mitnick was caught hacking and banned from computers, internet, etc. Are fraudsters typically banned from computers?

This is Crypto. Yeah nothing computer related... LOL. Maybe that will explain some strange movements recently reported on crypto assets related to FTX ;-)

Much more financial in nature than computational in nature. Though one could make the case for banning people from computers for financial crimes too.

Didn't she already recuse herself on that basis?

Let’s be clear. It was discovered that her husband worked for a company that had served FTX. Not serving them directly. This is not something that would be easily immediately discoverable. She refused herself. Everything here seems timely and proper.

At this point one has to wonder if the prosecutors agreed to these bail terms because they know this guy is so pathological he just can’t stop himself and would go on to make all kinds of stupid moves (just like he did leading up to his indictment).

This is likely one of the many nails he’ll hand them so they can hammer his coffin shut at trial and sentencing.

Also minor nitpick - a "first class private flight" is incongruous. He flew back first class on a commercial flight which has terrible optics but is actually pretty reasonable considering his profile, he (supposedly) had federal agents shadowing him, etc.

Optics are the main reason for judicial process of SBF at this point, to dissuade others and for viewing by the victims. It's not like tossing him in jail is going to bring back the money he stole.

> Did you miss the detail where the judge that set his bail conditions had her husband advise for FTX?

I don't think this is correct. That was the judge (Abrams) who decided to recuse herself. The judge who had already set the bail conditions (Gorenstein) was a different person, and I haven't heard that he had any prior connection to SBF or FTX. Here's an article about it: https://www.ibtimes.com/judge-handling-sbf-case-recuses-hers...

> the judge that set his bail conditions had her husband advise for FTX?

Aside from this not being true (a different judge set his bail), I don’t understand why people assume this conflict of interest would have somehow benefited SBF.

Presumably the reputation of her husband’s firm has been damaged by their relationship with FTX. They are embarrassed to have worked with him. They stand to gain absolutely nothing from him getting off lightly. The judge recused herself to avoid the appearance of bias against SBF. She doesn’t want him to appeal a conviction by arguing “of course I was found guilty, the judge’s husband hates me!”