[satellite2]

At the same time he violated laws meant to protect investor from losses. But if they didn't actually lose something, it would make sense to have a modest sentence. Not knowing what his reckless behavior actually caused would make the sentencing frivolous in my opinion.

[popcorncowboy]

That's not how it works. "No one got hurt" is a facile exoneration, and untrue at that. He didn't break the law "less" because by twist of fortune money showed up in the account sometime down the line.

[samsin]

Loss causation is described here [1] as the major factor influencing the sentencing range, so if all investors are made whole then a modest sentencing could be possible. It was also discussed in a recent Matt Levine newsletter.

[1] https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10...

[FireBeyond]

Especially when a lot of the "lack of loss" is due to the speculatory appreciation of cryptos as a whole, not due to anything on SBF's behalf. If crypto had crashed, they could equally be looking at almost nothing.

[satellite2]

That is very much how all criminal laws work.