[steveBK123]

Yes, not a lawyer so maybe theres some nuance here but.. I don't get taking the stand voluntarily to just say "I don't recall" endlessly?

At some point does the judge tell you to GTFO and strike all your testimony? Can they instruct the jury in some manner harmful to you as a result of your obvious malign intent? Etc..

[vkou]

> Can they instruct the jury in some manner harmful to you as a result of your obvious malign intent? Etc..

The judge doesn't need to do anything, the jury should have no problem putting two and two together on their own.

Someone who makes up an elaborate story, but can't recall any of the details when cross-examined looks guilty as sin.

[steveBK123]

Hopefully!

If SBF doesn't go down & spend time behind bars, its going to open the gates to a lot more fraud.

SBF did things that would make even the worst Wall St actors from the GFC blush. No arcane accounting/valuation rules, risk models, capital requirement arb, regulatory capture, misaligned incentives, loose prop trading rules.. letter of law vs spirit of law stuff, etc.

SBF committed the most open, direct, simple to understand version of all the fraud people imagined behind the GFC. Primarily he moved a substantial portion of customer deposits into prop trading accounts and then lost the money by trading poorly.

He literally lied about things like having insurance, seemingly didn't keep any true books & records (and asked for 7 variations of a balance sheet to find one that looked least bad).

You have emails where his dad that he hired as legal is approving transfers of customers money for uses like buying his parents a condo, lol.

[SilasX]

I remember an answer from Quora about how lawyers handle such a witness on cross-examination: They say, “well, we have this evidence from the time saying you did/said XYZ. So you’re saying you can’t think of anything that would contradict that account?”

[Clubber]

>I don't get taking the stand voluntarily to just say "I don't recall" endlessly?

He's taking the stand (which is a risk) because his lawyer asks him questions that are favorable to him. The risk comes in because the prosecutor gets to cross examine the witness, which is where all this recall stuff came from.

[asimpletune]

The main reason it’s a risk is because it allows new evidence to be introduced into the record to check his story.

Did you say X? (Yes/no/maybe) Well here’s an interview you have where you said the opposite.

Now a magazine article is part of the court record and can be weighed along with the other evidence.

[steveBK123]

But isn't it "too smart by half" kind of move? Clearly the prosecution is quite good, and clearly SBF is quite guilty.

He is going to get dragged through the mud having to respond "I dont recall" to a litany of embarrassing questions.. both because the lawyer is good and because he did lots of embarrassing things, openly..

[Clubber]

I haven't been following this specific case, so take that for what it's worth.

>He is going to get dragged through the mud having to respond "I dont recall" to a litany of embarrassing questions..

Yes, but he isn't admitting to anything, confirming anything for the prosecution, or saying anything incriminating either and that's the trap of the cross examination when taking the stand.

[beardyw]

That would be perfect ammunition for an appeal.