> There is zero evidence that [stealing] was his intent.

The federal jury seems to have disagreed, finding him guilty on all charges, all of which require intent. As do his co-conspirators who testified to their fraud.

This is such a bizarre take; this was one of the most lopsided financial prosecutions of all time and you're out here saying it had no foundation in fact at all?

Your replacement in brackets is completely different than what the parent said. “And distributing it to the poor” was a key part of what they were responding to.

The last sentence is literally "The fact that he failed does not mean that he intended to steal from the rich".

The commenter was very clearly disputing SBF's _intent_ to steal. _You_ may doubt his good intentions for that theft (quite reasonably), but that's not the point that we are debating.

Not only did panarky clearly dispute intent to steal, they specifically said that there's a lot of evidence of intent to help people: "There is a lot of evidence that he intended to maximize trading profits and use those profits to help people."

Juxtaposed with zero evidence of intent to steal.

I'm sorry, but I believe you have misread the thread completely.