"This makes the prosecution of Bond look politically motivated and selective".
Per my comment on the Tornado Cash developer trial, and the question of why go after that developer instead of the financial institutions that are often connected with money laundering (HSBC, Credit Suisse, etc.)--it's not only about how heinous the crime, but also about how easy it is to win the prosecution.
Which is easier to prosecute? Someone who clearly given the role--a wife who normally would not get a paid consulting job from her husband? Or someone who was born into the role--a mom who might understandably receive a donation from her son? Someone who used the funds directly--to run her own campaign? Or someone who then donated to others--to run their campaigns and would require proving a quid pro quo that it would then help her?
Actually this could be an interesting case of "effective value" or whatever they call it. High risk, but high reward in the case of SBF's mom. Ah, but that reward doesn't go into the pocket of the one taking it, which might dissuade, say, an appointee or employee of the DOJ. Of course, SBF was taking high risk, high reward "altruistically." Only keeping that reward in his pocket temporarily. Though he would in no way be bound to then passing it on. That is definitely what would happen. Right?
Anyway, this is not to say I am sure SBF's mom's case is harder to prosecute than Salame's wife's case. Wait, Salame's? Is his name really a deli meat? Had to double check. Guess so.
But instead, it's like my last comment, which, yes, did have elements of pedantry. But not pedantry for pedantry's sake. Pedantry is basically empty calories for self esteem. The counterargument/question presents itself in both cases, and in both cases would like to hear it explored, i.e. by DZM. Regarding my last comment, I'd like to hear: How well do these expected value calculations hold up in general, how much are they used as excuses for generally considered amoral behavior, and how much of the supposedly delayed moral payoff actually occurs and is measurable? And for this comment, I am curious: How hard would it be to win against SBF's mom vs Salame's wife in a similar case?
"This makes the prosecution of Bond look politically motivated and selective".
Per my comment on the Tornado Cash developer trial, and the question of why go after that developer instead of the financial institutions that are often connected with money laundering (HSBC, Credit Suisse, etc.)--it's not only about how heinous the crime, but also about how easy it is to win the prosecution.
Which is easier to prosecute? Someone who clearly given the role--a wife who normally would not get a paid consulting job from her husband? Or someone who was born into the role--a mom who might understandably receive a donation from her son? Someone who used the funds directly--to run her own campaign? Or someone who then donated to others--to run their campaigns and would require proving a quid pro quo that it would then help her?
Actually this could be an interesting case of "effective value" or whatever they call it. High risk, but high reward in the case of SBF's mom. Ah, but that reward doesn't go into the pocket of the one taking it, which might dissuade, say, an appointee or employee of the DOJ. Of course, SBF was taking high risk, high reward "altruistically." Only keeping that reward in his pocket temporarily. Though he would in no way be bound to then passing it on. That is definitely what would happen. Right?
Anyway, this is not to say I am sure SBF's mom's case is harder to prosecute than Salame's wife's case. Wait, Salame's? Is his name really a deli meat? Had to double check. Guess so.
But instead, it's like my last comment, which, yes, did have elements of pedantry. But not pedantry for pedantry's sake. Pedantry is basically empty calories for self esteem. The counterargument/question presents itself in both cases, and in both cases would like to hear it explored, i.e. by DZM. Regarding my last comment, I'd like to hear: How well do these expected value calculations hold up in general, how much are they used as excuses for generally considered amoral behavior, and how much of the supposedly delayed moral payoff actually occurs and is measurable? And for this comment, I am curious: How hard would it be to win against SBF's mom vs Salame's wife in a similar case?