[hackyhacky]

Changpeng Zhao broke the law and got caught. Everyone agrees on that. What you present above is revisionist history about "political persecution," which is the favorite justification of the current administration for pardoning convicted felons, even in the total absence of any evidence supporting a conclusion of political persecution. See also George Santos, J6 rioters, etc.

I don't think it's really necessary to pretend that this pardon was deserved. The pardon happened because (a) Trump wants the support of crypto billionaires and (b) Trump received a large bribe. It's really not complicated.

Painting Trump as sympathetic to ethnic discrimination is really ridiculous. No one believes that, even people who cynically use that justification to support his lawlessness.

[jonnygoodwin]

You sound biased. If you believe this narrative, I got a few questions for you… - How was Binance any different than any other crypto exchange? - Should Coinbase and every other crypto platform be charged for the same crimes?

[arevno]

Coinbase had the "right" kind of people on their board, and reacted much more rapidly to KYC requirements. For good or for ill, that's the reality.

The real question is about Kraken. How they've managed to remain untouched is a mystery.

[hackyhacky]

> Should Coinbase and every other crypto platform be charged for the same crimes?

Absolutely.

[opello]

Is there a place for a logical counter-point in there not having been charges against people responsible for the 2008 financial crisis? It seems like a selective enforcement of rules or consequences in both situations to me.

[hackyhacky]

Your argument is a non sequitur. You are saying in essence: "Someone, somewhere, under totally different circumstances was not prosecuted. Therefore, this particular prosecution is selective prosecution, and therefore inappropriate." By that logic, we should just stop prosecuting crimes altogether, on the logic that we are unable to prosecute all crimes consistently.

[opello]

There wasn't an argument per se, but an attempt to point out a possibly, similarly politically-influenced miscarriage of justice.

It may be a non sequitur to suggest that the pardon of one convicted financial criminal is similar to the lack of convictions in another likely financial crime context, but it seemed germane and parallel to me.

[hiddencost]

They should be charged too. Every conviction for financial crimes is an incredibly hard fought victory, because this country runs on fraud. Your argument is why we should treasure CZs conviction and seek many many many more like it.

[opello]

This was part of my point and a nuance I appreciate as well, and that the pardon resonates for me with the apparent lack of charges for those responsible for the financial crisis.

[lawn]

The right thing to do is to prosecute the responsible for 2008, not to pardon people responsible for other crimes...

[opello]

Yes, exactly, and yet I don't think there has been much in the way of charges brought against those responsible for fraudulently rating the securities.

[yihtserns]

Those people responsible for the 2008 financial crisis yet not charged, they should be charged with breaking what law?

[opello]

Some form of fraud for misrepresenting the risk that the mortgages that were bundled together, seems like the obvious answer. But I'm not a forensic accountant or someone with the nuanced legal understanding to define a charge here. Do you think there was no crime in the actions taken by either the banks or the rating agencies? No failure of fiduciary responsibility?

[yihtserns]

  - Operation Malicious Mortgage:
    - > 400 arrested
    - 173 convictions
  - Operation Stolen Dream:
    - ~500 arrested
    - > 300 convictions

Those that can, have been charged with fraud. For the rest, typically there's not enough evidence/they covered their tracks well.