> SBF obviously won’t get life behind bars, nor should he.
Is it really that obvious? I know the Federal Sentencing Guidelines have some wiggle room and gray areas, but I do know for financial crimes the length of sentence is largely proportional to the amount of money involved - not linearly proportional, mind you, but given that around 8 billion was stolen, definitely seems like life is on the table.
That said, I agree with your "nor should he" statement. The money is gone, and SBF rotting in jail for the rest of his life isn't going to bring it back. I do think he deserves to spend a long, long time in jail, but will it really have any more significant deterrent effect if he gets out at, say, age 65 vs. dying in jail?
We'll know for sure when the charges are unsealed tomorrow, but for now, it's likely he's only been charged with a few counts of wire fraud and money laundering. Bank fraud has a max sentence of 30 years, wire fraud 20 years, and like Holmes found out (fortunately for her) - the amount isn't the total amount that was lost, but the smaller amount implicated directly in the fraud charges.
If you squint, you can maybe get to 37-40 points if they do get him for over $1 billion -- which is a serious sentence! But more on the order of 19-24 years.
Is it really that obvious? I know the Federal Sentencing Guidelines have some wiggle room and gray areas, but I do know for financial crimes the length of sentence is largely proportional to the amount of money involved - not linearly proportional, mind you, but given that around 8 billion was stolen, definitely seems like life is on the table.
That said, I agree with your "nor should he" statement. The money is gone, and SBF rotting in jail for the rest of his life isn't going to bring it back. I do think he deserves to spend a long, long time in jail, but will it really have any more significant deterrent effect if he gets out at, say, age 65 vs. dying in jail?