Asklemmy

I understand what you’re saying but the logic is a little flawed.

Yes, they both committed fraud.

SBF defrauded the crypto community, his investors, and FTX users.

Trump defrauded lenders, property insurers, and various tax authorities (and via that tax fraud, the taxpayers of NY and possibly the USA.)

SBF was charged criminally and found guilty. I assure you, the civil cases are coming against SBF. And the plaintiffs will most likely win those civil cases.

Trump was charged civilly and found guilty. I assure you, the criminal cases are coming against Trump. And the plaintiffs will most likely lose those criminal cases.

That’s the true difference.

People keep asking this. I guess it's the new spin the Trump fascists are trying to work.

Why New York state is suing Trump instead of charging him with crimes

James seems to be taking this approach, as opposed to a criminal indictment, because New York law empowers the AG to seek damages caused by fraudulent business behavior as a form of consumer protection. The law doesn’t require the AG to identify a victim or even demonstrate anybody suffered harm. Plus, the burden of proof is lower in civil cases than in criminal ones.

“What makes this statute particularly powerful is that there doesn’t have to be a loss,” Will Thomas, a law professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, told Yahoo Finance. “This statute has been used to disgorge profits illegally gained. The government can be allowed to claw back all of those profits. Provable nature is lower, and you don’t have to prove intent or willfulness.”

A civil suit also prevents James from bumping into the criminal case against Trump’s company that the Manhattan district attorney is prosecuting. Those two offices sometimes work together on criminal cases, as they’re doing on the recent indictment of former Trump adviser Steve Bannon. With regard to Trump, however, they seem to be pursuing complementary approaches instead of overlapping ones.

So the answer is: it's easier to win, it's easier to punish Trump & they can still file criminal charges after a successful civil case if more crimes are uncovered.

they're both terrible people who deserve everything they get but sbf didn't nominate judges to the court who can rule in his favour.

Trump subscribes to a higher justice tier than Sam does.

Civil vs Criminal. Trump got a disgorgement, it's not a fine. He's been ordered to pay back his ill-gotten gains, that's not the same thing as a fine. Anyhow, a civil case can't end in jail time. That's not how civil cases work.

It's not federal vs state

It's protected vs sacrificial lamb.

The powerful avoid the mobs by occasionally giving up one of their own to the horde.

Trump's fines are from his Civil cases. SBF had Criminal charges.

Trump defrauded the state/city/taxpayers while Bankman defrauded rich investors. Also, the aforementioned civil vs criminal cases.

It's a matter of privilege. Trump had the opportunity to stack the courts in his favor. SBF didn't. The rich rally around Trump because they see him as one of their own. SBF was an interloper. Trump has a rabid fan base willing to commit violence in his name. SBF cloaked himself in effective altruism.

If they both don't rot in jail, then the myth of the social contract in the US will be torn to shreds. I fear what would happen after that.

Mainly because Trump can start riots with a word and nobody gives a fuck about Sam Bankman Fraud. Obviously the cases are different, but the reason the approach is different is the aforementioned riots and possible civil war.

In as barebones as I can make it, SBF disappeared money from the wealthy with no return of investment. Trump held office and was able to deregulate and reduce taxes for the wealthy allowing their wealth to accumulate.

I mean, if you want to stay safe in life, maybe don’t make your own last name “Fried”

A president in jail would be disastrous for the reputation of America as a country. That's been my theory as to why he will never face any real consequence. It seems like an elephant in the room. One that probably doesn't even split neatly down partisanship.