Does the fraud case against Sam Brinkman hinge entirely
on intent?

He's given several interviews, always with the same
story ... "I got in over my head, I made some mistakes,
no harm intended, sorry guys"

Now, let's say the jury buys his story, he's Little Red
Riding Hood, stumbling around in the dark woods
full of wolves. Losing money in business isn't a crime.
The currency markets are a casino, well known, if his
customers gambled their pensions betting on a green
kid, too bad, live and learn! As if they're a bunch of
little lambs.

Then, can the jury acquit, in good conscience? Or
can the gummit say "Here are the facts, we lay
out his actions, these are felonies, regardless of intent."
And then the jury decides by that criteria, alone.

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"RichD" wrote in message news:f65cab20-52fd-4df0-9594-f713e6ca0602n@googlegroups.com...

Does the fraud case against Sam Brinkman hinge entirely
on intent?

He's given several interviews, always with the same
story ... "I got in over my head, I made some mistakes,
no harm intended, sorry guys"

Now, let's say the jury buys his story, he's Little Red
Riding Hood, stumbling around in the dark woods
full of wolves. Losing money in business isn't a crime.
The currency markets are a casino, well known, if his
customers gambled their pensions betting on a green
kid, too bad, live and learn! As if they're a bunch of
little lambs.

Then, can the jury acquit, in good conscience? Or
can the gummit say "Here are the facts, we lay
out his actions, these are felonies, regardless of intent."
And then the jury decides by that criteria, alone.

--
Rich

Not every crime requires intent. For example, if you are driving a car and
you accidentally kill someone, you could get charged with manslaughter based
on negligence, even though you had no intent to kill anyone.

Another example. You are at a store shopping and you absent mindedly forget
to pay for one of your purchases. Perhaps you put it in your coat pocket
and just forget to pay for it. You weren't intending to shoplift, but you essentially did that. You leave the store and are arrested for shoplifting. Again - no intent, just stupidity.

So yes, Sam Brinkman may legitimately have been over his head and simply
made some mistakes - i.e., he was negligent. That doesn't lessen his guilt.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/5/2023 10:20 AM, RichD wrote:

Does the fraud case against Sam Brinkman hinge entirely
on intent?

He's given several interviews, always with the same
story ... "I got in over my head, I made some mistakes,
no harm intended, sorry guys"

Now, let's say the jury buys his story, he's Little Red
Riding Hood, stumbling around in the dark woods
full of wolves. Losing money in business isn't a crime.
The currency markets are a casino, well known, if his
customers gambled their pensions betting on a green
kid, too bad, live and learn! As if they're a bunch of
little lambs.

Then, can the jury acquit, in good conscience? Or
can the gummit say "Here are the facts, we lay
out his actions, these are felonies, regardless of intent."
And then the jury decides by that criteria, alone.

It depends on how the law is written. If the charge is fraud, then
intent is key. Did he intend to enrich himself at the expense of his customers/investors? Or were the losses caused by events that he hadn't
planned for and had no control over.

There is, of course, a middle ground: events that he _should_ have
planned for but failed to. This should not lead to a criminal conviction (because no intent), but to a civil judgment. Depending on the
circumstances, that judgment might or might not be dischargable in
bankruptcy. (Intentional torts are not dischargeable, and the rules in
civil litigation are different from those in criminal law.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/5/2023 12:35 PM, Rick wrote:

Not every crime requires intent.  For example, if you are driving a car
and you accidentally kill someone, you could get charged with
manslaughter based on negligence, even though you had no intent to kill anyone.

Another example.  You are at a store shopping and you absent mindedly
forget to pay for one of your purchases.  Perhaps you put it in your
coat pocket and just forget to pay for it.  You weren't intending to shoplift, but you essentially did that.  You leave the store and are arrested for shoplifting. Again - no intent, just stupidity.

So yes, Sam Brinkman may legitimately have been over his head and simply
made some mistakes - i.e., he was negligent.  That doesn't lessen his
guilt.

That's because the law _explicitly_ says that any negligence in driving
a motor vehicle that results in death is "vehicular manslaughter." In
theory, going 45MPH in a 40MPH zone could qualify, even though you were
not violating the "basic speed law".

That does not apply to the crime of fraud. Here is the definition in the California penal code:

32.
(a) Every person who _knowingly_ and _designedly_, by any _false_ or _fraudulent_ representation or pretense, defrauds any other person of
money, labor, or property, whether real or personal, or who causes or
procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile
character, and by thus imposing upon any person obtains credit, and
thereby fraudulently gets possession of money or property, or obtains
the labor or service of another, is punishable in the same manner and to
the same extent as for larceny of the money or property so obtained.

(emphases mine)

If he did not knowingly make false claims, then he hasn't committed
fraud, and a jury should find him Not Guilty.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 5 Jan 2023 10:20:18 -0800 (PST), RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

Does the fraud case against Sam Brinkman hinge entirely
on intent?

He's given several interviews, always with the same
story ... "I got in over my head, I made some mistakes,
no harm intended, sorry guys"

Where is the money? It didn't all disappear just because the price
went down, did it? (I'm assuming. I really don't know. I invest in Ring
Dings, not bitcoins.)

If money is missing, let him tell us where it is so it can be returned.

Now, let's say the jury buys his story, he's Little Red
Riding Hood, stumbling around in the dark woods
full of wolves. Losing money in business isn't a crime.
The currency markets are a casino, well known, if his
customers gambled their pensions betting on a green
kid, too bad, live and learn! As if they're a bunch of
little lambs.

Then, can the jury acquit, in good conscience? Or
can the gummit say "Here are the facts, we lay
out his actions, these are felonies, regardless of intent."
And then the jury decides by that criteria, alone.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/5/2023 8:11 PM, micky wrote:

In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 5 Jan 2023 10:20:18 -0800 (PST), RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

Does the fraud case against Sam Brinkman hinge entirely
on intent?

He's given several interviews, always with the same
story ... "I got in over my head, I made some mistakes,
no harm intended, sorry guys"

Where is the money? It didn't all disappear just because the price
went down, did it? (I'm assuming. I really don't know. I invest in Ring Dings, not bitcoins.)

If money is missing, let him tell us where it is so it can be returned.

You might want to read the Wikipedia articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Bankman-Fried https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_of_FTX

It's not clear whether the money went into Bankman-Fried's pocket (as
loans from FTX), or whether it "disappeared" because demand for the cryptocurrency FTT dropped precipitously. If the former, then there is a
strong case for fraud and for Bankman-Fried being required to pay what
money he has left (less than $1billion out of a former net worth of $26billion). If the latter, then it's like any other commodity trading
thing: sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose, and you should never
put more than you can afford to lose into something as volatile as a cryptocurrency.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Fri, 6 Jan 2023 08:22:21 -0800 (PST), Barry
Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:

On 1/5/2023 8:11 PM, micky wrote:

In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 5 Jan 2023 10:20:18 -0800 (PST), RichD
<r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

Does the fraud case against Sam Brinkman hinge entirely
on intent?

He's given several interviews, always with the same
story ... "I got in over my head, I made some mistakes,
no harm intended, sorry guys"

Where is the money? It didn't all disappear just because the price
went down, did it? (I'm assuming. I really don't know. I invest in Ring
Dings, not bitcoins.)

If money is missing, let him tell us where it is so it can be returned.

You might want to read the Wikipedia articles: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Bankman-Fried >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_of_FTX

It's not clear whether the money went into Bankman-Fried's pocket (as
loans from FTX), or whether it "disappeared" because demand for the >cryptocurrency FTT dropped precipitously. If the former, then there is a >strong case for fraud and for Bankman-Fried being required to pay what
money he has left (less than $1billion out of a former net worth of >$26billion). If the latter, then it's like any other commodity trading
thing: sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose, and you should never
put more than you can afford to lose into something as volatile as a >cryptocurrency.

Well I would certainly like it if he's not guilty of these things.

In the past he's given money to political candidates who afaict wouldn't benefit him directly but only help causes he believes in.

And it would be sad if two lawyers gave birth to a felon. Re: another
thread, it might even be (debatable?) grounds for abortion if you knew
your fetus would become a felon.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On January 5, Barry Gold wrote:

Does the fraud case against Sam Brinkman hinge entirely
on intent?
He's given several interviews, always with the same
story ... "I got in over my head, I made some mistakes,
no harm intended, sorry guys"

It depends on how the law is written. If the charge is fraud, then
intent is key. Did he intend to enrich himself at the expense of his customers/investors? Or were the losses caused by events that he hadn't planned for and had no control over.

The latest revelations indicate they were siphoning customer
money, using it to play the currency markets.

So it's possible there was no intent to defraud; like "We'll make
a quick buck, then pay it back, nobody will notice." (evidently it
didn't occur to them, that sometimes the dice bounce the
wrong way) But such activity is embezzlement, regardless of
intent. And three of his compadres have pleaded guilty.

So the question is, what is Brinkman's defense strategy? He looks
cooked. What counsel is he receiving from his counselors?

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)