Law

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/12511460

Law360 (February 28, 2024, 1:40 AM EST) -- FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried asked a Manhattan federal judge late Tuesday for a sentence that releases him "promptly" after his conviction for stealing billions from customers of the now-collapsed crypto exchange, arguing that federal sentencing guidelines recommend no more than six-and-a-half years in prison.

Bankman-Fried made the request in a memorandum submitted to U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who is due to sentence the 31-year-old former crypto executive on March 28. Bankman-Fried was found guilty in November of seven counts of fraud, conspiracy and money laundering, although he maintains his innocence and has vowed to appeal.

According to the filing, a presentence report prepared by the U.S. Probation Department calculated sentencing guidelines that call for a maximum sentence of 1,320 months, or 110 years, with the report recommending a downward variance of 10 years to bring the recommended sentence to 100 years.

But Bankman-Fried asked the court to reject the report's "barbaric proposal," saying the advisory guidelines should put the appropriate sentence range at 63 to 78 months, or 5 years and 3 months to 6 years and 6 months.

Considering the former CEO's "charitable works and demonstrated commitment to others, a sentence that returns Sam promptly to a productive role in society would be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes of sentencing," the memo states.

Bankman-Fried argues that he is a first-time, non-violent offender and that the report includes an incorrect 30-point increase to the base offense level based on the assumption that the case involved a loss of $10 billion. But the report adopted that $10 billion loss number "without a scintilla of support," the memo states.

Tuesday's filing says that bankruptcy counsel for FTX stated last month that "customers and creditors who can prove their losses are expected to get back all of their money."

"[T]he company was solvent at the time of the bankruptcy petition," the memo asserts. "The money was there — not lost."

"The harm to customers, lenders, and investors is zero," the filing adds, italicizing the sentence for emphasis.

Alternatively, the court could peg customer losses as the estimated cost of collection in the bankruptcy proceedings, according to the memo.

At this point, the total fees incurred by advisors to the unsecured creditors committee is about $57.5 million, the memo states, which Bankman-Fried argued is a much more reasonable estimate of actual loss than the presentence report's estimate of $10 billion.

With that in mind, there should not be a 30-point increase in the guidelines calculation for a loss amount enhancement, Bankman-Fried said.

The memo also highlights Bankman-Fried's "selfless, altruistic" qualities and his commitment to philanthropy, attaching 29 letters of support from his brother and parents; several professors at Stanford University, where his parents work, including the interim dean of Stanford Law School; tech executives; two psychiatrists; and his former personal assistant.

Barbara Fried, an attorney and professor emeritus at Stanford Law, wrote that anyone who tries to "understand him through the lens of 'normal' behavior and motivations is going to misunderstand" her son. She said her son has suffered with depression but has devoted his life to the happiness of others.

For example, when he took a lucrative job as a trader at Jane Street Capital, he gave away more than half his earnings without telling his parents, according to the letter. Even in the six months he has spent in detention, she said her son is running a tutoring session to help fellow inmates prepare for GED exams.

Fried also emphasized that her son is autistic and that she fears for his life in a typical prison environment, where his "inability to read or respond appropriately to many social cues, and his touching but naive belief in the power of facts and reason to resolve disputes, put him in extreme danger."

"If allowed to resume his life, he would do the only thing he has ever cared about: devote the remainder of his natural life to leaving the world a better place than he found it," Fried wrote.

Paul Brest, named the interim dean of Stanford Law last month, wrote that Bankman-Fried is a proponent of a philanthropy theory called "effective altruism," which holds that a person's life "should be devoted to doing as much good as possible."

"Beyond his intellectual contributions, Mr. Bankman-Fried has manifested the philosophy in his own giving and life," Brest wrote, noting that he has donated millions of dollars to effective altruism causes. "Based on his behavior to date, Mr. Bankman-Fried is likely to continue to engage in philanthropy in whatever circumstances he is placed."

The prosecution's sentencing recommendation is due March 15.

Counsel for Bankman-Fried and a representative for the DOJ did not immediately respond to requests for comment late Tuesday.

During a month-long trial this past fall, prosecutors said Bankman-Fried drove FTX into bankruptcy by spending $10 billion worth of customer deposits on venture investments, lavish real estate and political donations.

Three of Bankman-Fried's top lieutenants — Caroline Ellison, Gary Wang and Nishad Singh — testified that the defendant accomplished this scheme by secretly funneling billions of dollars between FTX and his crypto hedge fund Alameda Research.

The defense, meanwhile, said Bankman-Fried made a number of governance mistakes but did not intend to steal from FTX customers. Bankman-Fried himself made this argument from the witness stand, telling jurors that he always believed Alameda could lawfully borrow from FTX and then repay the debts.

The jury ultimately deliberated for just over four hours before finding Bankman-Fried guilty on all counts. He has been detained at Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center since August due to alleged witness tampering.

The government is represented by Danielle R. Sassoon, Nicolas Roos, Danielle Kudla, Samuel Raymond and Thane Rehn of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and Jil Simon of the U.S. Department of Justice's Criminal Division.

Bankman-Fried is represented by Marc L. Mukasey, Torrey K. Young, Thomas E. Thornhill, Michael F. Westfal and Stephanie Guaba of Mukasey Young LLP.

The case is U.S. v. Bankman-Fried, case number 1:22-cr-00673, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The FBI violated the Fourth Amendment when its agents rifled through the contents of more than 700 safe-deposit boxes in the aftermath of a March 2021 raid

Charlotte, North Carolina’s NBC affiliate, WCNC, tells it like it is. Although it puts quotes around a couple of phrases, it at least uses those phrases in the headline and subhead. “It is like highway robbery” says the headline. In the subhead: “policing for profit.”

The US supreme court on Friday declined to decide Donald Trump’s immunity claim in his 2020 election subversion criminal case before his arguments are settled in a lower court.

The decision went against special counsel Jack Smith who on Thursday urged America’s highest court to swiftly take up the issue of whether Trump is, as the former president claims, immune from criminal prosecution on federal charges over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Friday’s decision will slow down the progress of the case against Trump, which had been set to go to trial in March, creating greater tension over the overlap of an intensifying presidential election race in 2024 and Trump’s multiple criminal cases.

The former president is the front runner for the Republican nomination, as he seeks re-election, despite facing dozens of charges in four criminal cases.

In Proclamation 10467 of October 6, 2022 (Granting Pardon for the Offense of Simple Possession of Marijuana), I exercised my authority under the Constitution to pardon individuals who committed or were convicted of the offense of simple possession of marijuana in violation of the Controlled Substances Act and section 48–904.01(d)(1) of the Code of the District of Columbia (D.C. Code). As I have said before, convictions for simple possession of marijuana have imposed needless barriers to employment, housing, and educational opportunities. Through this proclamation, consistent with the grant of Proclamation 10467, I am pardoning additional individuals who may continue to experience the unnecessary collateral consequences of a conviction for simple possession of marijuana, attempted simple possession of marijuana, or use of marijuana. Therefore, acting pursuant to the grant of authority in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, I, Joseph R. Biden Jr., do hereby grant a full, complete, and unconditional pardon to all current United States citizens and lawful permanent residents who, on or before the date of this proclamation, committed or were convicted of the offense of simple possession of marijuana, attempted simple possession of marijuana, or use of marijuana, regardless of whether they have been charged with or prosecuted for these offenses on or before the date of this proclamation, in violation of:

(1) section 844 of title 21, United States Code, section 846 of title 21, United States Code, and previous provisions in the United States Code that prohibited simple possession of marijuana or attempted simple possession of marijuana;

(2) section 48-904.01(d)(1) of the D.C. Code and previous provisions in the D.C. Code that prohibited simple possession of marijuana;

(3) section 48-904.09 of the D.C. Code and previous provisions in the D.C. Code that prohibited attempted simple possession of marijuana; and

(4) provisions in the Code of Federal Regulations, including as enforced under the United States Code, that prohibit only the simple possession or use of marijuana on Federal properties or installations, or in other locales, as currently or previously codified, including but not limited to 25 C.F.R. 11.452(a); 32 C.F.R. 1903.12(b)(2); 36 C.F.R. 2.35(b)(2); 36 C.F.R. 1002.35(b)(2); 36 C.F.R. 1280.16(a)(1); 36 C.F.R. 702.6(b); 41 C.F.R. 102-74.400(a); 43 C.F.R. 8365.1-4(b)(2); and 50 C.F.R. 27.82(b)(2).

My intent by this proclamation is to pardon only the offenses of simple possession of marijuana, attempted simple possession of marijuana, or use of marijuana in violation of the Federal and D.C. laws set forth in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this proclamation, as well as the provisions in the Code of Federal Regulations consistent with paragraph (4) of this proclamation, and not any other offenses involving other controlled substances or activity beyond simple possession of marijuana, attempted simple possession of marijuana, or use of marijuana, such as possession of marijuana with intent to distribute or driving offenses committed while under the influence of marijuana. This pardon does not apply to individuals who were non-citizens not lawfully present in the United States at the time of their offense.

Pursuant to the procedures in Proclamation 10467, the Attorney General, acting through the Pardon Attorney, shall review all properly submitted applications for certificates of pardon and shall issue such certificates of pardon to eligible applicants in due course.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-second day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-eighth.

JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in Manhattan on Thursday, less than a week after he was socked with a $148 million damage award for defaming two Atlanta election workers.

Giuliani listed debts as high as $500 million and about $10 million in assets in bankruptcy papers filed in Manhattan federal court. Last week’s mammoth judgment came after a Washington, D.C., jury determined his campaign of lies against Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss provoked a deluge of vicious and life-altering threats.

The suit is one of many criminal and civil cases facing the former mayor and Trump lawyer as he drowns in legal bills, some of which he’s acting as his own lawyer. This summer, he put his $6.5 million townhouse on the Upper East Side on the market.

Giuliani did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment.

In a landmark decision, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that former president Donald Trump is disqualified from appearing on the state’s primary ballot next year.

The Justices’ 4-3 ruling concludes that Trump engaged in an insurrection with his words and actions around the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol and therefore cannot hold the nation’s highest office again.

“We are also cognizant that we travel in uncharted territory,” wrote Colorado’s Supreme Court in its unsigned 213-page decision.

This is the first time a state’s high court has concluded the 14th Amendment’s Civil War-era Disqualification Clause applies to both the office of the presidency and the actions of the former president. Supreme Courts in Minnesota and Michigan dismissed similar complaints.

“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” wrote the Justices. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”

In a statement, the Trump campaign called the ruling "a completely flawed decision" and said it would swiftly file an appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

[A]round 2000, chatter that Thomas was dissatisfied about money circulated through conservative legal circles and on Capitol Hill, according to interviews with prominent attorneys, former members of Congress and Thomas’ friends. “It was clear he was unhappy with his financial situation and his salary,” one friend said.

...

During his second decade on the court, Thomas’ financial situation appears to have markedly improved. In 2003, he received the first payments of a $1.5 million advance for his memoir, a record-breaking sum for justices at the time. Ginni Thomas, who had been a congressional staffer, was by then working at the Heritage Foundation and was paid a salary in the low six figures.

Thomas also received dozens of expensive gifts throughout the 2000s, sometimes coming from people he’d met only shortly before. Thomas met Earl Dixon, the owner of a Florida pest control company, while getting his RV serviced outside Tampa in 2001, according to the Thomas biography “Supreme Discomfort.” The next year, Dixon gave Thomas $5,000 to put toward his grandnephew’s tuition. Thomas reported the payment in his annual disclosure filing.

Larger gifts went undisclosed. Crow paid for two years of private high school, which tuition rates indicate would’ve cost roughly $100,000. In 2008, another wealthy friend forgave “a substantial amount, or even all” of the principal on the loan Thomas had used to buy the quarter-million dollar RV, according to a recent Senate inquiry prompted by The New York Times’ reporting. Much of the Thomases’ leisure time was also paid for by a small set of billionaire businessmen, who brought the justice and his family on free vacations around the world. (Thomas has said he did not need to disclose the gifts of travel and his lawyer has disputed the Senate findings about the RV.)

By 2019, the justices’ pay hadn’t changed beyond keeping up with inflation. But Thomas’ views had apparently transformed from two decades before. That June, during a public appearance, Thomas was asked about salaries at the court. “Oh goodness, I think it’s plenty,” Thomas responded. “My wife and I are doing fine. We don’t live extravagantly, but we are fine.”

A few weeks later, Thomas boarded Crow’s private jet to head to Indonesia. He and his wife were off on vacation, an island cruise on Crow’s 162-foot yacht.

Manhattan’s billionaire condo buyers would lose the ability to keep their identities secret in real estate deals if a measure before Governor Kathy Hochul becomes law.

Limited liability companies have been listed in public records as the buyers of countless New York luxury apartments — almost all of the deals legitimate. But it’s also well-documented that the secrecy of LLCs makes them useful in concealing financial crimes. By the end of next week, Hochul must sign or veto a bill that would create a public database of shell companies, unmasking their rich, famous and sometimes criminal owners.

Advocates argue the measure would root out so-called bad actors who hide behind LLCs to launder money — such as financier Jho Low, whose penthouse at Manhattan’s Time Warner Center was seized in a US government corruption probe. But opponents say it’s a violation of owners’ privacy, and an unnecessary move that would duplicate a similar federal law taking effect on Jan. 1.

I am a bit of a law junkie, but not a lawyer by any means. With the Bob Menendez superseding indictment today an old question came up. I feel like I should know this but...

Does a superseding indictment have to be a more "serious" charge? (Sorry for the terminology) this may be a bad example but if someone had already been charged with burglary could a superseding indictment then be unlawful entry?