[thebigjewbowski]

Taking the sentence at face value, even the initial 7 year sentence seems really extreme given the actual damages but from the article:

> Over a period of more than 10 years

> Precisely when King began serving his initial prison sentence of seven years and four months is unclear but given the June 2022 instruction that he cannot travel abroad, assuming that he served substantially less than the 88-month sentence imposed in 2019 seems reasonable.

They made £5M over 10 years and the main guy actually spent 3 or fewer years in prison.

Ultimately this seems exceedingly reasonable to me. Granted I’m from the US and I’m not familiar at all with the justice system in the UK.

[Namari]

The thing is 10 years in Jail is not going to teach them anything or protect society. The only victims are the broadcast companies, not like it ruined anyone's life. I think 1 year in Jail would have been more than enough, those people are not going to start again anytime soon anyways.

[thebigjewbowski]

I completely agree with you and that’s the thing; he was sentenced to 7 years in 2019 but he’s already out of prison and has a passport. He was free in less than 3.

He is presumably out on some kind of supervised release which is probably good. He had the motivation and ability to execute on an admittedly illegal business — he can now put those same skills to work doing something productive and the supervision will presumably make sure he isn’t committing fraud or anything.

[ddtaylor]

It's worth mentioning here in the US this would not be possible. Federal sentencing guidelines require 85% of time served. Someone with a 7 year sentence would have to serve at least 6 years of it under normal circumstances.

If they qualified for a drug rehabilitation program (RDAP) they could get that down to 5 years assuming they documented their addiction and how it influenced their crimes early in their legal case.

With some of the new First Step Act and similar changes it's theoretically possible to reduce the sentence by more if they participated in qualifying rehabilitative programs, but many of the federal prisons don't actually offer the programs yet despite lying and saying they do to meet legislative due dates.

[Namari]

I think the 85% is a good idea when it comes to crime/rape, things that make sure he pays as the victim has paid the price.

[pmyteh]

There is (for most crimes) an entitlement to release on licence after 1/2 or 2/3 of the sentence, with the rest being served in the community but subject to recall to prison. So the most important takeaway is that the 'headline' numbers are higher than those actually served. Given the crime and the date of sentence it's very likely that he served three years and eight months inside. Some of that might have happened before his trial if he was remanded in custody: time spent in prison pre-trial is counted towards the sentence.

The 'additional' time for not paying £963k is designed to be coercive. The court has, in theory, decided that not only does he owe the money but he can be expected to find it. And the prison in default is supposed to encourage him to do so. Importantly, it's not an either/or: he still owes the money even if he serves the default sentence.