SBF Objects to 100-year Sentencing Guideline Recommendation.
The defense team in the SBF case has filed their sentencing memorandum in response to the United States Probation Office’s Pre-sentence Investigation Report. I am not at all surprised to see the proposed sentencing recommendation of 100 years imprisonment. Coindesk Shortly after SBF’s arrest I posted a thread breaking down the potential sentencing guidelines in this case and predicted that he would face a potential Bernie Madoff level sentence in excess of 100 years in prison.
The Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) suggests a staggering 100-year prison sentence for Bankman-Fried, a 31-year-old, first-time, non-violent offender.
“The PSR recommends that the Court sentence Sam to 100 years in prison. That recommendation is grotesque.” Defense Sentencing Memo at 11.
This recommendation is based on an advisory guidelines analysis that culminates in a total offense level of 43, with the PSR arguing for a sentence that significantly exceeds the statutory maximum for the counts of conviction, thereby recommending an effective sentence of 110 years, later reduced to 100 years after a proposed downward variance.
In response, SBF’s defense team request a substantial downward variance from the estimated guideline range.
“Sam Bankman-Fried respectfully submits that, for the reasons set forth above, an appropriate method of arriving at a just sentence would be to consider the Adjusted Offense Level (Subtotal) of 56, reduced by 30 levels based on zero loss, which yields an advisory Guidelines range of 63-78 months. When the § 3553(a) factors are considered, including Sam’s charitable works and demonstrated commitment to others, a sentence that returns Sam promptly to a productive role in society would be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes of sentencing.” Defense Sentencing Memo at 89.
The defense's objections are multifaceted and highlight what they consider to be a gross misapplication of the sentencing guidelines. Central to their argument is the assertion that the magnitude of the recommended sentence is disproportionate, especially considering Bankman-Fried's role in a non-violent offense, his lack of prior criminal history, and the involvement of other parties in the conduct at issue. Moreover, the defense underscores the potential for victim restitution, arguing that a 100-year sentence overlooks the possibility of making victims whole, contrasting sharply with sentences reserved for far more heinous crimes.
Analyzing the PSR's guidelines calculation reveals a series of contested enhancements that the defense argues significantly inflates the recommended sentence. These include a loss amount enhancement based on an alleged $10 billion loss, which the defense argues is not supported by evidence or analysis. They also object to enhancements for sophisticated means, abuse of trust, and obstruction of justice, among others, suggesting these either do not apply as described in the PSR or substantially overstate Bankman-Fried's culpability.
The defense further argues that the compounding of all these guideline enhancements fails to account for the complexity of the case or SBF’s role. They point to the lack of empirical foundation for the guidelines' loss amounts and the disproportionate impact of these numbers on sentencing outcomes, suggesting that the guidelines in their current form do not adequately balance the severity of the offense with the individual circumstances of the offender.
Moreover, the defense argues that the actual loss involved is far less than the PSR suggests, if not zero, given the potential for full restitution to victims. This point is critical in their argument for a more reasonable sentence that reflects the true nature of the offense and the offender's potential for rehabilitation.
In summary, the defense's objections to the PSR's recommendations in the Bankman-Fried case underscore a broader critique of the federal sentencing guidelines, particularly in the context of financial crimes. They argue for a sentencing approach that more accurately reflects the nuances of the case, the individual's role and history, and the potential for restitution, rather than adhering rigidly to numerical enhancements that may not capture the full picture. The case highlights the ongoing debate over sentencing reform and the challenge of balancing the goals of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation in the justice system.
It will be interesting to see how the government responds to the defense’s sentencing memo. As I’ve previously discussed, the sentencing judge as broad discretion at sentencing and can either sentence SBF in accordance with the PSR’s recommended range or depart upward or downward from that guideline range based upon the arguments raised by both sides. SBF’s sentencing hearing is scheduled for March 28, 2024.