I can't believe this kind of take is still bouncing around given the sentence SBF got. After FTX collapsed there were a lot of people claiming that he wouldn't do any time at all, based on nothing more than a cartoonish understanding of how political donations and influence work. SBF got a totally reasonable punishment for a first time offender who stole a massive amount of money, and he will spend many years in prison.
> Had it not been for SBF's political contributions/connections, he would most certainly be locked away for life.
Well gosh, if you're that certain, you must have a fair bit of evidence here, right? If so, let's see it.
And I'd say you're entirely wrong about "undemocratic countries". The state may be supreme, but the law generally isn't. That applies from banana republics to oligarchies like Russia to the Chinese state, where connections make a huge difference. E.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princelings
I just love the sound of goalposts moving in the morning! First it was "Sam will never be charged with it because of his donations!" then it was "Sam will never be convicted because of his donations!" now its "A conviction of 25 years (where the average convict serves 85% of their sentence) is a sign of the power of his donations!"
Please provide evidence from your detailed understanding of Chapter 5 for why a life sentence was so certain?
In undemocratic countries the leaders' decisions (or whims) are supreme, and that situation is far more exposed to corruption, indeed it's often the modus operandi, and how they maintain power.
It has nothing to do with the state or the law, which are often just used to window-dress the leaders' schemes.
