Surprisingly, this portrayal of American education is accurate. It’s only a crime if you get caught and can’t afford a good lawyer, according to the guiding principle.
Unfair dealings to gain something is the basic definition of fraud SBF. I’m not sure your defense is good.
1a: DECEIT, TRICKERY
specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
This is only Onion-y if you ignore the actual article. The federal government does not have the authority to prosecute all fraud or everything that could be fraud in a civil case, and he is arguing that the feds haven’t met the elements for the particular crimes with which he is charged.
>Essentially, lawyers argued that, so far, there’s no evidence of harm caused because fraud requires a “scheme to cause economic loss to the victim,” which prosecutors allegedly haven’t proved. In place of such evidence, Bankman-Fried alleges that federal prosecutors have concocted “a hodgepodge of different intangible losses” suffered by banks and lenders—including “the right to honest services,” “the loss of control of assets,” and “the deprivation of valuable information.” His lawyers argued that this conflicts with prior court rulings limiting the scope of federal fraud statutes to a narrower definition of property rights so that they do “not criminaliz[e] all acts of dishonesty.”
kenlasalle says
Right. For instance, “lying” starts with an “l” and this guy’s a fucking douchebag.
brademerika says
Black is white; hot is cold
Bananna_sprite says
The phrase “Dishonesty and Unfair Dealing: Book 1: Business Basics Series” sounds like the name of an economics course.
bxtterfly_liv says
Surprisingly, this portrayal of American education is accurate. It’s only a crime if you get caught and can’t afford a good lawyer, according to the guiding principle.
sugar_addict002 says
I think they are on to something. They should probably take it all the way to the Supreme Court.
orienspacebar says
Well, he can certainly present that defense in court.
Thebalticrider says
Man, you’re in a lot of trouble when your best defense is “Yes, I lied and ripped people off, but it’s not a crime.”
Oumarx_x says
Who gives a shit? I believe I can speak for everyone when I say. Make an example of him to make others pause. This asshole should be set ablaze.
C-creepy-o says
Unfair dealings to gain something is the basic definition of fraud SBF. I’m not sure your defense is good.
1a: DECEIT, TRICKERY
specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
Bigsuge88 says
Has anybody asked ja rule what he thinks of all of this?
plugubius says
This is only Onion-y if you ignore the actual article. The federal government does not have the authority to prosecute all fraud or everything that could be fraud in a civil case, and he is arguing that the feds haven’t met the elements for the particular crimes with which he is charged.
>Essentially, lawyers argued that, so far, there’s no evidence of harm caused because fraud requires a “scheme to cause economic loss to the victim,” which prosecutors allegedly haven’t proved. In place of such evidence, Bankman-Fried alleges that federal prosecutors have concocted “a hodgepodge of different intangible losses” suffered by banks and lenders—including “the right to honest services,” “the loss of control of assets,” and “the deprivation of valuable information.” His lawyers argued that this conflicts with prior court rulings limiting the scope of federal fraud statutes to a narrower definition of property rights so that they do “not criminaliz[e] all acts of dishonesty.”
Edelkern says
The fuck is SBF?