[berkle4455]

Two counts of wire fraud, two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit commodities fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Maximum sentence of 110 years.

[listenallyall]

This outcome came about so quickly because she turned state's evidence, in return for what is likely to be an extreme reduction from that maximum (not that it was really a possibility, as a first offender)

[astrange]

Seems like it might be a bad move to enter a conspiracy with someone obsessed with game theory.

[berkle4455]

I dunno she's comfortable with risk and doesn't bother with pesky things like stop losses.

[dclusin]

She’s still probably not getting out in less than 5 years

[jjtheblunt]

it's an enormous first offense, though does that matter?

[Hamuko]

Did Madoff have a criminal record before he got hit with 150 years?

[thatsamonad]

I don’t believe so, but the judge sentenced him so harshly because the amount involved was astronomical, exceeding the maximum amount specified by federal sentencing guidelines for fraud ($400 million at the time)[0]. Also, many people lost their life savings and the fraud lasted for nearly 30 years and the judge didn’t feel that Madoff did everything he could to mitigate the harm caused by his actions.

[0](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/0...)

[cma]

Howey test classifying some tokens as securities others as commodities I guess?

[TrackerFF]

Anyone here know what the (summed) minimum sentencing is for all those crimes?

[baeaz]

I have always wondered why "x" and "conspiracy to commit x" are different counts.

[krisoft]

The elements are different. Typically “conspiracy to commit X” requires some number of people agreeing to do X and then someone from the group doing at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. So you can be guilty of “conspiracy to commit X” without ever getting even remotely close to doing X.

So for example if two mates talk about that they are going to kill person Y, that is the agreement. And then one of them buys a gun, that is an overt act. And even if person Y has very good security, and the two dudes have no chance in hell of murdering Y ever, that is still a “conspiracy to muder” charge.

[thesimon]

> So you can be guilty of “conspiracy to commit X” without ever getting even remotely close to doing X.

Probably most legal systems have something like that.

The interesting thing about US law - at least compared to German law (a Civil law country) - is the fact that even if you succeed with X, you can still be charged with conspiracy to commit X on top.

[throw_m239339]

> I have always wondered why "x" and "conspiracy to commit x" are different counts.

Conspiracy requires at least 2 people.

[listenallyall]

If I remember correctly, it has its roots in the RICO statutes which arose from FBI attempts to break up the mafia. The idea was to make it easier to prosecute people who did not actually pull the trigger but who were involved in planning and ordering of such crimes.

Now, a wiretap of a boss ordering a hit could result in the same sentence as the gunman.

Unfortunately it has been abused greatly, including drivers who never got out of the car sentenced to death for a 7/11 robbery gone bad, etc.

Further, as you can imagine, it gives the prosecution massive (many would say unfair) leverage over associates to a crime, given that they could face the same, full sentence if they don't cooperate. It's a major reason behind the enormous percentage of criminal charges not going to trial.

[foogazi]

> Unfortunately it has been abused greatly, including drivers who never got out of the car sentenced to death for a 7/11 robbery gone bad, etc.

In the Alameda case this could make everyone in on the conspiracy liable to the same exposure as SBF

[salawat]

One is an inchoate crime.

It's a way to let a prosecutor get ahead of an unsuccesful, and basically a freebie in terms of sentence amplification.