The way I read the argument (regarding bank fraud):
SBF: Here's my honest application.
Bank: Sorry, we'll have to decline your application.
SBF: Wait, here's my updated (dishonest) application.
Bank: Ah, looks much better. Approved.
And now they're arguing that because the bank declined the application at step 2, he should have gotten some executive and deep due diligence special treatment, which likely would have resulted in him getting the application approved?
But because he didn't, he had to lie on the next application. But said lying should be considered void, because there's a likelihood that he would have gotten the original application approved, had they just gone the extra mile for him?
Sounds like his lawyers are grasping at straws. I've worked in a regulatory arm myself, and this feels even more flimsy than the people/companies that have prematurely started doing stuff, because they assumed that they'd get a green light, or win some type of appeal.
He exposed the bank to risk, by providing a dishonest application. Seems pretty clear cut.
“They didn’t try hard enough to understand they wanted to approve my application so I made shit up to make it more appealing.”
Did I read that right? That’s hilarious. I actually believe that could have been going through his mind to make such a decision. Not that it’s excusable, of course, but... relatable, I guess.
Well this interpretation of the bank fraud statute ("bank fraud" with no attempted or actual loss to the bank because they omitted something on compliance forms) came out of the SDNY/EDNY a few years ago and is one many find to be highly questionable.
SBF: Here's my honest application.
Bank: Sorry, we'll have to decline your application.
SBF: Wait, here's my updated (dishonest) application.
Bank: Ah, looks much better. Approved.
And now they're arguing that because the bank declined the application at step 2, he should have gotten some executive and deep due diligence special treatment, which likely would have resulted in him getting the application approved?
But because he didn't, he had to lie on the next application. But said lying should be considered void, because there's a likelihood that he would have gotten the original application approved, had they just gone the extra mile for him?
Sounds like his lawyers are grasping at straws. I've worked in a regulatory arm myself, and this feels even more flimsy than the people/companies that have prematurely started doing stuff, because they assumed that they'd get a green light, or win some type of appeal.
He exposed the bank to risk, by providing a dishonest application. Seems pretty clear cut.