|
| ▲ | kelnos an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Would you say that a misuse of funds with zero chance of the rightful owner losing their money is a less serious crime than a misuse of funds with a 50% or 100% chance of losing their money. No, because the crime is the same either way. The crime is "misuse of funds", full stop. If recklessly using those funds is also a crime, then there should be an extra charge tacked on, which would presumably increase penalties on conviction. |
| |
| ▲ | SoftTalker an hour ago | parent [-] | | Agreed. I've seen local officials convicted of misusing an offical credit card for groceries and other personal purchases, even though they paid everything back and there was no "loss" to the taxpayers. But they were still misusing public credit for personal benefit. Of course it was a pretty clear pattern of usage over time, not a one-time thing that could be explained as accidental. |
|
|
| ▲ | SoftTalker an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Paying back a victim, or "making them whole" is part of required restitution, but it's not adequate as a deterrence. If all I have to do is pay back my victims, there's very little disincentive to keep trying my schemes until I "win." Loss of freedom is ultimately what will reform a criminal, if reform is possible. |
| |
| ▲ | Lerc 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | >Loss of freedom is ultimately what will reform a criminal, if reform is possible. I don't believe that is correct. In fact there's pretty good research to suggest that custodial sentences inrcease recidivism. This does not really apply to the SBF case, but I shall elaborate for the general case. There are far more burglars in their 20's than in their 50's. The predominant characteristic amongst people over the age of 50 being convicted of burglary is previous jail time for burglary. Research has shown the single most reliable way to reform a criminal is to let them get older without going to jail, and to a lesser extent gaining a criminal record. People are far more often criminals by circumstance than by nature. |
|
|
| ▲ | FireBeyond an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I would disagree, solely because one or more of the following reasons: 1. the person taking the money had no guarantee that the money, or some of it, would not be lost. 2. it wasn't their intention to give all or some of it back to its rightful owners. 3. the fact that some of it could repay some of the rightful owner's was often a matter of luck, not intent (there is some overlap between 1 and 3). SBF hits all three of these. Your intent matters. At some point SBF intended by conscious acts to run and continue running a Ponzi scheme. He wasn't trying to bail himself out of the hole other than to the extent required to keep the Ponzi scheme going and enrich himself in the process. So, respectfully, I disagree. May there be other cases that I agree with you on, depending on the particulars? Perhaps so. But not this one. |
| |
| ▲ | Lerc 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I agree on your points of what matters. I disagree that this was shown in the SBF case. In fact, it seems much of the case was based on the fact that these points were not pertinent to the charges he faced. Which is also likely why his appeal failed. The argument that he was disallowed from making would have spoken to those issues. If it had have been relevant to the charges, he should have been allowed to make the argument. | |
| ▲ | CPLX an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Intent isn't necessarily an element required to prove fraud. Recklessness can be sufficient. Also to the extent intent is required intent to deceive is sufficient, ie the intent to cause someone to rely on a false statement, even if there's no intent to harm because you're convinced your fraudulent scheme will ultimately lead to success. |
|
