Crypto CEO behind $2.5B 'rug pull' arrested(pcgamer.com)
pcgamer.com
Crypto CEO behind $2.5B 'rug pull' arrested
https://www.pcgamer.com/crypto-ceo-behind-dollar25b-rug-pull-arrested-faces-40564-years-in-prison/
101 comments
I always curious how this crime starts. You’re already presiding over a popular exchange with billions in customer funds. Surely you could just run that legitimately and still make a ton of money?
A book named "How will you measure your life?" by Clayton Christiansen that dives pretty deeply into the topic, among other things.
The theory presented was called "The Trap of Marginal Thinking". On the margin, it may appear to make sense to do something or push some boundary or take on some more leverage because it, on the margin, is most likely going to work out. But by doing so, we end up putting ourselves and companies in a dangerous position when looking at the whole.
The theory presented was called "The Trap of Marginal Thinking". On the margin, it may appear to make sense to do something or push some boundary or take on some more leverage because it, on the margin, is most likely going to work out. But by doing so, we end up putting ourselves and companies in a dangerous position when looking at the whole.
I agree with his view overall, but the current atmosphere seems to reward boundary-pushing more and more. There's never been a better time to be a stress-resistant psychopath or its company equivalent.
> never been a better time
when we define better as financially compensated.
It's still very much at a net loss to humanity, but for personal (or small group) gain. IE it's become very profitable to shrink the pie
when we define better as financially compensated.
It's still very much at a net loss to humanity, but for personal (or small group) gain. IE it's become very profitable to shrink the pie
Some - not all - very wealthy people don't feel constrained by what is legal, moral, or enough. Being very wealthy can mean you don't derive your security from your community moral standing, but instead by purchasing security.
And they are not necessarily wrong in the logical sense, because as a society, we have allowed much financial crime to go unpunished or mildly punished so there is low deterrence effect for such people.
And they are not necessarily wrong in the logical sense, because as a society, we have allowed much financial crime to go unpunished or mildly punished so there is low deterrence effect for such people.
I think many people are programmed to seek a continual sense of improvement and accomplishment to feel our life is progressing and not regressing or staying static. If you already have a billion dollars and everything you could possibly want, how do you achieve that feeling? Maybe through altruistic work, but that's not your MO. Your MO is making money, so the answer is: 2 billion.
That's an achievement just as much as starting the next bottle of bourbon after finishing the first one is an achievement. There is happiness hiding in that SECOND bottle/billion.
It all starts with making a mistake. To cover for the mistake, you make another gamble, and if it doesn't pay off, then the whole process begins.
This is why when you make the mistake, you open up and own it.
This is why when you make the mistake, you open up and own it.
Greed or hubris? Bernie Madoff had a legitimate successful business before he started his Ponzi scheme.
Presumably he started with ill intentions.
Let's see.. 125mil right now, or 1mil over the next couple years.
Let's see.. 125mil right now, or 1mil over the next couple years.
Pigs get slaughtered.
Example: Carlos Ghosn was simultaneously CEO of Renault, Nissan, and Mitsubishi. He turned two of those from bankruptcy into the 4th-largest auto group in the world. He met all the world's leaders and spoke in all the high places. And made probably $10M/month.
And he stole $8M.
Was caught, lost all his positions, and is living the life of a fugitive. Had to be smuggled out of Japan in a box.
Don't be a pig.
[Note, story is from memory, might have some details fuzzy - but easy to research.]
Example: Carlos Ghosn was simultaneously CEO of Renault, Nissan, and Mitsubishi. He turned two of those from bankruptcy into the 4th-largest auto group in the world. He met all the world's leaders and spoke in all the high places. And made probably $10M/month.
And he stole $8M.
Was caught, lost all his positions, and is living the life of a fugitive. Had to be smuggled out of Japan in a box.
Don't be a pig.
[Note, story is from memory, might have some details fuzzy - but easy to research.]
Most people don't preside over popular exchanges with billions in customer funds.
It's a self-selected group.
It's a self-selected group.
This assumes that you have a legitimate business at all. A lot of these ventures quickly discover that there's just not much there, that all of crypto is just people gambling on number go up. At that point what do they do? Go down with the ship or exit scam?
Because greed knows no limits.
Greed.
> Greed
This is often thrown out as a shorthand for systemic failures, e.g. renters blaming individual landlords for rising rents. But I think it applies here. Short-term optimisation at the expense of long-term value. Optimising for the margin at the risk of the whole. Irrational, self-destructive maximalism: greed.
This is often thrown out as a shorthand for systemic failures, e.g. renters blaming individual landlords for rising rents. But I think it applies here. Short-term optimisation at the expense of long-term value. Optimising for the margin at the risk of the whole. Irrational, self-destructive maximalism: greed.
Wouldn't it be easier to simply pay someone to hack you and then tell the public, "We were hacked and all of our funds were stolen"?
What prevents someone from doing this? It allows for perfect plausible deniability, and there is nothing that can be done about it.
What prevents someone from doing this? It allows for perfect plausible deniability, and there is nothing that can be done about it.
> What prevents someone from doing this?
Paranoia probably. Is there anybody you could trust to do something that illegal with that much money, that wouldn't ghost you after they had it? Maybe close family or friends, but the closer they are to you, the easier the plot is for investigators to unravel.
Paranoia probably. Is there anybody you could trust to do something that illegal with that much money, that wouldn't ghost you after they had it? Maybe close family or friends, but the closer they are to you, the easier the plot is for investigators to unravel.
Asking the wrong question, because "prevention" or prohibition never works.
We should be asking what drives people. if we can shift the drive from accumulating wealth to accomplishing great things...
We should be asking what drives people. if we can shift the drive from accumulating wealth to accomplishing great things...
Why pay an anonymous hacker when you yourself can just be that anonymous hacker?
How could this possibly go wrong? Let me count the ways:
- You pay the hacker to hack you, the hacker takes the payment and disappears.
- The hacker hacks you, steals all the money for themselves and disappears.
- The hacker turns you in and collects a reward from the government, because the hacker has a moral conscience | is actually a Fed | decides getting a small amount of reward money legitimately from the government or potential victims has a better risk/reward tradeoff than conspiring with a stranger to steal a huge amount of money.
- The hacker hacks you, but keeps records of messages showing your complicity and blackmails you with them.
Basically it boils down to:
- No honor among thieves (you can't just trust the hacker to keep his word if he has a lot of incentives to break it)
- The courts won't help (generally if you say in court "I paid this guy to commit a crime and he took the money but didn't commit the crime," not only will the court refuse to enforce the contract and order the hacker to pay you, but you've now confessed -- under oath, no less! -- to being involved in a crime, which makes it quite likely you'll be arrested on the spot and prosecuted for your actions)
- Physical violence doesn't work well on the Internet. (Traditional organized crime enforces its "contracts" by threatening or carrying out physical violence against contract breakers or their family. This would only work if you knew your hacker's real name and location, and presumably the sort of people who sell illegal hacking services to anonymous strangers are quite, um, shy about giving their clients any information about their identity or location, for exactly the reason they don't want a crazed client to show up and physically attack them.)
- You pay the hacker to hack you, the hacker takes the payment and disappears.
- The hacker hacks you, steals all the money for themselves and disappears.
- The hacker turns you in and collects a reward from the government, because the hacker has a moral conscience | is actually a Fed | decides getting a small amount of reward money legitimately from the government or potential victims has a better risk/reward tradeoff than conspiring with a stranger to steal a huge amount of money.
- The hacker hacks you, but keeps records of messages showing your complicity and blackmails you with them.
Basically it boils down to:
- No honor among thieves (you can't just trust the hacker to keep his word if he has a lot of incentives to break it)
- The courts won't help (generally if you say in court "I paid this guy to commit a crime and he took the money but didn't commit the crime," not only will the court refuse to enforce the contract and order the hacker to pay you, but you've now confessed -- under oath, no less! -- to being involved in a crime, which makes it quite likely you'll be arrested on the spot and prosecuted for your actions)
- Physical violence doesn't work well on the Internet. (Traditional organized crime enforces its "contracts" by threatening or carrying out physical violence against contract breakers or their family. This would only work if you knew your hacker's real name and location, and presumably the sort of people who sell illegal hacking services to anonymous strangers are quite, um, shy about giving their clients any information about their identity or location, for exactly the reason they don't want a crazed client to show up and physically attack them.)
…um, that’s a funny definition of “perfect” when you have a hacker with a Signal message history that they can use to blackmail you to hell and back.
I remember that one of the technical employees of the said exchange claimed cyber attacks to their servers were so rampant and many succesful that they were simply not able to continue business with all the stolen funds. I honestly believe that incompetentness might have played a huge role in this "fraud" story.
Being incompetent is far less illegal than covering up your incompetence with fraud.
If you don't cover up the first stolen funds, people will have a sense of the risk you pose and there will be less opportunity for future stolen funds because your customers will leave or beat you with a stick until your security improves.
If you don't cover up the first stolen funds, people will have a sense of the risk you pose and there will be less opportunity for future stolen funds because your customers will leave or beat you with a stick until your security improves.
What I most enjoy about crypto is the special language it has for everything.
It's how they can claim to "invent" things, as opposed to what's actually going on which is regurgitating failed and banned (for good reason) ideas.
Really? Can you tell me where perpetual swaps and automated market makers were used in the past?
Are perpetual swaps inherently impossible outside the cryptocurrency space, or is this just a "… on the blockchain!" invention?
I'm unconvinced that AMM is an actual good. It's like HFT, where you're counting centimeters of fiber to the exchange, to win algorithmically. The solution there isn't to democratize HFT by (in the analogy) allowing the little guy to also colocate with the exchange. The solution is to remove the penny tray theft that is HFT altogether, as it can't be justified as paying for value added. These last nanoseconds don't actually add any liquidity.
I'm unconvinced that AMM is an actual good. It's like HFT, where you're counting centimeters of fiber to the exchange, to win algorithmically. The solution there isn't to democratize HFT by (in the analogy) allowing the little guy to also colocate with the exchange. The solution is to remove the penny tray theft that is HFT altogether, as it can't be justified as paying for value added. These last nanoseconds don't actually add any liquidity.
With good behavior he could be out in 28,395 years do he’s got that going for him.
We need more of this, more jail for corporate malfeasance. Fine just become the cost of doing business.
Compare this to China who executed two executives over contaminated infant formula [1] whereas we were almost rewarding Abbott for similar malfeasance.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/world/asia/25china.html
We need more of this, more jail for corporate malfeasance. Fine just become the cost of doing business.
Compare this to China who executed two executives over contaminated infant formula [1] whereas we were almost rewarding Abbott for similar malfeasance.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/world/asia/25china.html
> The Albanian minister for internal affairs, Bledar Chuchi, said that the fugitive's identity was confirmed post-arrest by biometric results: Özer had apparently shaved his head.
Seems they might not even have realized who they arrested until they tested him, or they just re-confirmed who it was post-arrest. If the former, any idea what he initially got arrested for?
Seems they might not even have realized who they arrested until they tested him, or they just re-confirmed who it was post-arrest. If the former, any idea what he initially got arrested for?
Different countries have different laws but generally you're allowed to arrest someone when you have reasonable suspicion that they've committed a crime (say 99%) and then only confirm it 100% once they're arrested.
Yeah, I understand that, but you still need reasonable suspicion, and I don't think generally police in various countries are A) aware of all the faces on the Interpol lists and B) suspect people of fraudulently closing down cryptocurrency exchanges and running away from their countries.
The guy steals over $100M and decides to hide in Albania of all places? What's the deal with that? He could've paid less than $10k to get into Schengen (super low risk, the "high end" operators will drop you from a plane with a skydiving instructor) and had much more places to hide and way better places to spend his money at.
Or someplace where Interpol does not operate, or which doesn't have an extradition treaty with Turkey.
> Or someplace where Interpol does not operate
That's hard. But Interpol isn't a real concern anyways, how often have you had your fingerprints taken during your daily life?
Fake IDs aren't hard to come by, even manufacturing a good enough EU ID card at home isn't very hard.
That's hard. But Interpol isn't a real concern anyways, how often have you had your fingerprints taken during your daily life?
Fake IDs aren't hard to come by, even manufacturing a good enough EU ID card at home isn't very hard.
He shouldn't worry, that sentence will probably be cut in half anyway, and with another 100 years off for good behavior.
With good behaviour he should be out by the time he’s 20,578 years old
Just in time for "The Year of Crypto."
But still not The Year of Desktop Linux.
I know this isn't a humor site, but the three comments above were worthy of any comedy writing team. Result? Instant, involuntary, and un-stifle-able laughter. Thanks!
So not exactly the great Houdini after all. [0] Oh well. You can run but you can't hide alive.
Now he has all the time to practice his disappearing tricks in prison. By the time he has perfected it, he would have already disappeared from life itself.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26911159
Now he has all the time to practice his disappearing tricks in prison. By the time he has perfected it, he would have already disappeared from life itself.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26911159
The phrase "rug pull" is almost cartoonishly evil. It implies waiting until the victims are feeling nice and secure, and then you rip everything out from under them as quickly as possible. The fact that the phrase has become so closely related to crypto activities is really telling.
What did you say, ?
[deleted]
Once again crypto investors have to be bailed out by the same government regulation they hate so much.
> Once again crypto investors have to be bailed out by the same government regulation they hate so much.
Are they being bailed out by the government? I didn't see anything that said the government is making the investors whole here, do you?
Are they being bailed out by the government? I didn't see anything that said the government is making the investors whole here, do you?
Prosecution of crime discourages further crime, so yes the ecosystem is being helped directly by the government regardless of whether these few investors get their money back or not.
And while it is too early to say in this case, the government has reimbursed crypto victims in several cases in the US (see https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2020/11/... and https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/18/22789507/crypto-scam-gov... as examples).
And while it is too early to say in this case, the government has reimbursed crypto victims in several cases in the US (see https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2020/11/... and https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/18/22789507/crypto-scam-gov... as examples).
Especially in Bitcoin circles, the classical economic view of property rights is pretty much a cornerstone of the ideology. Many would argue defending property rights is one of the most legitimate utilizations of Government force. I'm not sure I understand your point, at all.
The ideas that:
• The blockchain is an immutable distributed source of truth outside the control of any central authority
and
• The government can pass judgement, seize your assets and give them to someone else
are fundamentally contradictory.
If you want the government to be the final arbiter of property rights then you are conceding that they control property allocation, not some global ledger.
• The blockchain is an immutable distributed source of truth outside the control of any central authority
and
• The government can pass judgement, seize your assets and give them to someone else
are fundamentally contradictory.
If you want the government to be the final arbiter of property rights then you are conceding that they control property allocation, not some global ledger.
Outside the control of something does not mean the same as outside the reach of. For a typical tech example consider e.g. owning a word processor vs using a word processing software as a service. In the former your usage of that is outside the control of any central authority, but certainly not outside their potential reach.
If the government deems your copy of that software is illegal, they may come for you [and it], but at the same time they can't simply whisk it out of existence - because they don't control it. By contrast, in the SaaS case - they can indeed simply whisk it out of existence, so far as you are concerned.
This also has nothing to do with conceding who "controls property allocation." It's all about control/ownership.
If the government deems your copy of that software is illegal, they may come for you [and it], but at the same time they can't simply whisk it out of existence - because they don't control it. By contrast, in the SaaS case - they can indeed simply whisk it out of existence, so far as you are concerned.
This also has nothing to do with conceding who "controls property allocation." It's all about control/ownership.
[deleted]
So "no regulation" when it suits them. And "strong regulation" when it suits them. No different than any other industry, actually ;)
When I read your post I interpreted it as the government making people whole out of the general tax fund. However, after reading the articles, it seems the government seized assets from fraudsters and then returned the assets to the victims.
This comment is not intended to argue about anything, just adding a clarification.
This comment is not intended to argue about anything, just adding a clarification.
If you'd prefer im sure crypto investors would be happy to take justice into their own hands.
Somehow i think you wouldnt like private mercenaries running around hanging people that crypto bros dislike though
Somehow i think you wouldnt like private mercenaries running around hanging people that crypto bros dislike though
i actually think this is a valid point. Either enforce property right laws correctly or people will turn to vigilanteeism. Just because the property happens to be crypto rather than real estate or your car, doesn't mean it's any less deserving of due process.
> Are they being bailed out by the government? I didn't see anything that said the government is making the investors whole here, do you?
Isn't the whole thing that code is the new law?
If you transfer ownership to your cryptos to that exchange, they should be the "legitimate" owner if you follow that logic. However it seems that all of this is just avoid the actual law when it seems convenient and cry back when it's not.
Isn't the whole thing that code is the new law?
If you transfer ownership to your cryptos to that exchange, they should be the "legitimate" owner if you follow that logic. However it seems that all of this is just avoid the actual law when it seems convenient and cry back when it's not.
What value does this comment add to the discussion?
The standard expectation in the cryptocurrency space is that all problems are adjudicated via blockchain mechanisms (on chain, off chain, etc.) in a decentralized way. The fact that the government (a centralized, non-blockchain entity) has to step in to address a problem indicates a failure of the cryptocurrency ideal.
Is he saying that, or is he simply expressing a disdain for what he sees as anti-regulation crypto investors? He's overgeneralizing to suggest all crypto investors hate regulation, which no one believes is true. It's not even clear the majority oppose regulation in the crypto space.
Investors don't oppose regulation, they usually assume it.
The criminals running all the crypto ponzi schemes hate regulation.
But sell it to "investors" as though it's actually regulated and low risk.
Like the clowns running Voyager
https://www.americanbanker.com/news/fed-fdic-order-voyager-t...
The criminals running all the crypto ponzi schemes hate regulation.
But sell it to "investors" as though it's actually regulated and low risk.
Like the clowns running Voyager
https://www.americanbanker.com/news/fed-fdic-order-voyager-t...
The crypto ideal does not use custodial exchanges. Exchanges and brokerages have traditionally been regulated. They are convenient and not really the crypto ethos.
Since you said it was a standard expectation, you can point to polls that show this sentiment, right? Leaders of major projects saying that blockchain means stealing is ok and the government shouldn't prosecute it?
Or is it a thing you made up to win an argument. It is, isn't it. You made this up.
Or is it a thing you made up to win an argument. It is, isn't it. You made this up.
Have you... ever used a blockchain?
> What value does this comment add to the discussion?
Some of us advocate for a crypto tax to cover the cost of investigating, prosecuting and remunerating victims. This is currently borne by the public purse. Given the disproportionate contribution of crypto to fraud, and animated by the community’s general disdain for the law, this seems fair.
Some of us advocate for a crypto tax to cover the cost of investigating, prosecuting and remunerating victims. This is currently borne by the public purse. Given the disproportionate contribution of crypto to fraud, and animated by the community’s general disdain for the law, this seems fair.
[deleted]
> Interpol had issued a red notice on Özer in April 2021, which basically means every police force in the world was asked to locate and arrest him.
Yikes. That's like 4 stars of wanted level.
Yikes. That's like 4 stars of wanted level.
Just wait for Proof-of-Stake to be implemented. It will solve all of the problems people complain about with Crypto.
Along with the rapture and the year of the Linux desktop, I'm sure.
Don't forget the ascension of Hurd as the globally preferred kernel.
y'all are ruthless
Chromebooks are being anti-trusted out of schools globally.
I think Desktop Linux came, won, left, and nobody wants to admit it.
I think Desktop Linux came, won, left, and nobody wants to admit it.
essentially turning that crytpo into the financial system that the original crypto (bitcoin) was trying to differentiate itself from (or make obsolete, we do not know satoshi's political intentions)
/s
So, will they keep him alive for 40k years or how does that work? Isn’t it a little silly?
Things like this aren't a single charge with a 40k year sentence, it's ~2000 charges of ~20 years, served sequentially. It means that if he's found not guilty of ~1999 of those charges, he still serves 20 years for the 2000th. And conversely, if he is found guilty of all ~2000 separate crimes, why shouldn't he receive a sentence for each? It might seem like a silly result, but what would you propose changing?
In the US those would likely be grouped for sentencing, and he'd get somewhere near whatever the longest possible sentence is for fraud under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines with enhancements for the total amount of damage caused, maybe racketeering, and maybe a few others. It would essentially be treated as one big crime with 2000 victims, not 2000 separate crimes.
In the US whenever you see a story about an incredibly long sentence it is almost always because someone did not take into account grouping for sentencing, or they did not take into account that a person is often charges with multiple levels of a crime from the same act, and if convicted on more than one of those charges they are only sentenced on the most severe.
For example in most jurisdictions in if I were to shoot you to death the US there would be multiple degrees of murder that I might be charged with, maybe also multiple degrees of negligent homicide and manslaughter and maybe even others. My sentence if convicted would be the sentence of whichever of those has the longest sentence.
Unfortunately in the US when the Department of Justice issues a press release touting charging someone they don't take those things into account, and so the press release says the person is facing some number of years that can be several times too high.
I'd hold back on believing that he's really facing ~40k years in Turkey until someone familiar with Turkish law and sentencing verifies that things really so work that way in Turkey.
In the US whenever you see a story about an incredibly long sentence it is almost always because someone did not take into account grouping for sentencing, or they did not take into account that a person is often charges with multiple levels of a crime from the same act, and if convicted on more than one of those charges they are only sentenced on the most severe.
For example in most jurisdictions in if I were to shoot you to death the US there would be multiple degrees of murder that I might be charged with, maybe also multiple degrees of negligent homicide and manslaughter and maybe even others. My sentence if convicted would be the sentence of whichever of those has the longest sentence.
Unfortunately in the US when the Department of Justice issues a press release touting charging someone they don't take those things into account, and so the press release says the person is facing some number of years that can be several times too high.
I'd hold back on believing that he's really facing ~40k years in Turkey until someone familiar with Turkish law and sentencing verifies that things really so work that way in Turkey.
This is prosecutors gaming the system to try and make something stick.
If you're comfortable with prosecutors being able to play games with people's lives because they've made a personal judgment call to maximize their ability to punish people, great! The system is working the way you want it to.
Not everyone is comfortable with that.
If you're comfortable with prosecutors being able to play games with people's lives because they've made a personal judgment call to maximize their ability to punish people, great! The system is working the way you want it to.
Not everyone is comfortable with that.
I'm broadly in favor of shorter (or no) prison sentences for most offenses, but my empathy doesn't extend quite as far for someone who runs a crypto scam to dupe and and steal $2B from thousands of middle-class people. I think that most white collar offenses are disgustingly under-punished, and the knowledge that this will likely come down considerably means I'm not at all offended by this.
Which crimes would you reduce/remove prison sentences? Murder, rape, assault, fraud, robbery, kidnapping?
It was probably imprecise to say "most", because I suppose I don't know the proportional breakdown of which crimes led to all of the convictions, or the breakdown of what all the crimes are.
That said, I think most property crime is motivated by desperation, and prison rarely does anything to help improve the lives of someone who only resorted to anti-social behavior because they had little other choice. So I think most robbery should only be punished because of the violent aspect, and most burglary should be "punished" with halfway houses or a system like the Civilian Conservation Corps. I also think drug related crime is a huge waste of time, and that the damage caused by drug dealing/smuggling/manufacturing is a fairly direct result of it being illegal, rather than intrinsic to the "industry".
I think the justice system would need to be entirely reformed before it would make sense to reduce prison sentences for violent crime like murder, rape, or kidnapping. Though I think we're doing more harm than good throwing such people in prison for decades without any real rehabilitation involved.
That said, I think most property crime is motivated by desperation, and prison rarely does anything to help improve the lives of someone who only resorted to anti-social behavior because they had little other choice. So I think most robbery should only be punished because of the violent aspect, and most burglary should be "punished" with halfway houses or a system like the Civilian Conservation Corps. I also think drug related crime is a huge waste of time, and that the damage caused by drug dealing/smuggling/manufacturing is a fairly direct result of it being illegal, rather than intrinsic to the "industry".
I think the justice system would need to be entirely reformed before it would make sense to reduce prison sentences for violent crime like murder, rape, or kidnapping. Though I think we're doing more harm than good throwing such people in prison for decades without any real rehabilitation involved.
Rolling a stop sign. Drunk driving.
But if you hit someone while driving, you get charged with felony assualt with a deadly weapon.
But if you hit someone while driving, you get charged with felony assualt with a deadly weapon.
How about jaywalking? Or carrying a gram of weed?
> will they keep him alive for 40k years or how does that work?
Imagine how awful that would be.
> ~2000 charges of ~20 years
And that makes me wonder. Maybe that would be too harsh a sentence then. Do we want to basically "end" someone's life at an insane cost to the tax payer for something with no impact on others other than financial? I have no answer, it just feels somewhat suboptimal to me.
Imagine how awful that would be.
> ~2000 charges of ~20 years
And that makes me wonder. Maybe that would be too harsh a sentence then. Do we want to basically "end" someone's life at an insane cost to the tax payer for something with no impact on others other than financial? I have no answer, it just feels somewhat suboptimal to me.
I mean, yes.
If you steal a billion dollars from a whole bunch of middle class folks, you are, in aggregate "ending" a whole lot of life in small amounts distributed across many people.
If you steal a billion dollars from a whole bunch of middle class folks, you are, in aggregate "ending" a whole lot of life in small amounts distributed across many people.
Are you ending their lives in a comparable way though? Especially if there are ways to get back what you stole as it is often the case?
I just feel like the aggregate punishment does not at all fit the crime in a case like this.
I just feel like the aggregate punishment does not at all fit the crime in a case like this.
Often, yes.
A problem with money is that it abstracts away harm so that a person stops thinking like it's so bad to take money away from people because it's just money, when in fact you're actually taking away the things people can do with that money.
Did zero people end up homeless as a result of this fraud? Did zero people lose a job? Did zero people turn to crime to get by? Did zero people get pushed over the edge to suicide? How many years of life were lost due to stress or more difficult life situations? To depression? To hunger?
I doubt any of those numbers are zero. The stories are just hidden behind the abstraction of money.
Crypto companies preying on gullible people more vulnerable to the loss of large sums of money and then losing their money due to management incompetence and fraud are indeed responsible for a lot of real world harm.
A problem with money is that it abstracts away harm so that a person stops thinking like it's so bad to take money away from people because it's just money, when in fact you're actually taking away the things people can do with that money.
Did zero people end up homeless as a result of this fraud? Did zero people lose a job? Did zero people turn to crime to get by? Did zero people get pushed over the edge to suicide? How many years of life were lost due to stress or more difficult life situations? To depression? To hunger?
I doubt any of those numbers are zero. The stories are just hidden behind the abstraction of money.
Crypto companies preying on gullible people more vulnerable to the loss of large sums of money and then losing their money due to management incompetence and fraud are indeed responsible for a lot of real world harm.
That's a good point. I hope the punishment was in fact based on actual real world impacts (of having stolen that money) that you described and not simply based on some monetary amount multiplied by number of occurrences.
It's just what prosecutors are accusing and the sentence attached in their proposal. A new charge for each of the people affected, which was a couple thousand apparently. One doesn't have to read all that much into the wishlist of prosecutors. Throwing a lot at the wall and seeing what sticks is a pretty standard practice.
But what we have here is essentially somebody leading a bank taking all the money left after losing a bunch of it to hacks and running away with it. Whatever it was, it was an enormous amount of money and not the kind of thing anyone needs to be particularly forgiving about.
Life in prison for stealing between $20MM and $125MM from customers isn't out of the question. (on top of the fraud that lost them the rest of their money)
But what we have here is essentially somebody leading a bank taking all the money left after losing a bunch of it to hacks and running away with it. Whatever it was, it was an enormous amount of money and not the kind of thing anyone needs to be particularly forgiving about.
Life in prison for stealing between $20MM and $125MM from customers isn't out of the question. (on top of the fraud that lost them the rest of their money)
On the positive side, punishment in 2022 completely removes the risk of impalement[0].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impalement#Ottoman_Empire
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impalement#Ottoman_Empire
Eventually, when we have brain uploading, we will make 2000 copies of the defendant and have them each serve a 20 year sentence, and then merge them back together at the end, leaving them with the memory of having served 40,000 years.
I honestly think the only rational reaction to brain upload technology existing is to erase as many traces of your existence as possible before self-terminating. Bet Pascal didn't picture this wager
There's infinitely more than one way to turn a list of numbers into one number, not just summing them up. In some countries you serve the maximum sentence out of all those that you've been convicted for.
[deleted]
Why would they count the terms sequentially when prison sentences are typically served concurrently? Is that not the case here?
It’s up to the judge, some of the factors are listed here: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/consecutive-vs-concurrent-...
I think a more fitting punishment would be to make an AI that measures how much pain he caused each of his customers, and then makes him sit through that pain. It would probably take hundreds of years, but the AI could make him live that long too. But I don't know if this is ethical. Someone chime in?
Sounds like "an eye for an eye". Apparently "it leaves the whole world blind", and that is why it's undesirable.
The second thing is that there's no way to measure pain, and also what we feel as pain is more like two things, actual pain, as in nervous system reaction, and suffering, which you create in your mind. There's two-way causation between the two by default, but the effect of one on the other is not deterministic, and can be learnt to that you feel pain, but do not suffer (as much you did previously). So we couldn't measure the pain before, and now we cannot measure the suffering to an even lesser degree.
The third thing is, which usually comes up with regards to crime, is punishment vs rehabilitation. What you describe with the AI, as it stands, is punishment. It's up the person being punished to learn something there. I don't have high expectation of someone who's returned to society after such lengthy torture (or are we killing them afterwards, or keeping them otherwise captive?). In case you're a victim of a crime, or just someone affected, it's natural to thirst punishment for the perpetrator. On a societal level however, it seems like that we're better off with rehabilitation. It creates a better social environment for all.
https://www.uib.no/en/news/100126/norwegian-prisons-rehabili...
The second thing is that there's no way to measure pain, and also what we feel as pain is more like two things, actual pain, as in nervous system reaction, and suffering, which you create in your mind. There's two-way causation between the two by default, but the effect of one on the other is not deterministic, and can be learnt to that you feel pain, but do not suffer (as much you did previously). So we couldn't measure the pain before, and now we cannot measure the suffering to an even lesser degree.
The third thing is, which usually comes up with regards to crime, is punishment vs rehabilitation. What you describe with the AI, as it stands, is punishment. It's up the person being punished to learn something there. I don't have high expectation of someone who's returned to society after such lengthy torture (or are we killing them afterwards, or keeping them otherwise captive?). In case you're a victim of a crime, or just someone affected, it's natural to thirst punishment for the perpetrator. On a societal level however, it seems like that we're better off with rehabilitation. It creates a better social environment for all.
https://www.uib.no/en/news/100126/norwegian-prisons-rehabili...
I disagree with the first paragraph (because eventually we will have the technology) but agree with the second, which is a good point.