Well gosh, if you're that certain, you must have a fair bit of evidence here, right? If so, let's see it.
And I'd say you're entirely wrong about "undemocratic countries". The state may be supreme, but the law generally isn't. That applies from banana republics to oligarchies like Russia to the Chinese state, where connections make a huge difference. E.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princelings
Once you stop being able to give future donations your political capital falls to nil.
It is quite possible in few years his political capital would be useful for that (with some new donations of course ).
Please provide evidence from your detailed understanding of Chapter 5 for why a life sentence was so certain?
In undemocratic countries the leaders' decisions (or whims) are supreme, and that situation is far more exposed to corruption, indeed it's often the modus operandi, and how they maintain power.
It has nothing to do with the state or the law, which are often just used to window-dress the leaders' schemes.
Had it not been for SBF's political contributions/connections, he would most certainly be locked away for life.
Irony is that this practice would be impossible in undemocratic countries. The state/law absolutely is supreme.