What he may say has the same credibility as that of some of the scum that swarm the forum and some of those in cahoots with him: in other words, none.

I already commented it some time ago in another thread: I remember seeing in an interview a psychiatrist saying that very rarely people who commit crimes admit they have done something wrong. In other words, the one who rapes a 9 year old girl justifies it by saying that she "provoked him", and things like that.

That's why I'm not surprised that now this asshole comes out saying that he hasn't done anything wrong. The only thing I hope is that he spends many years in jail.

This is normal, what do you expect him to say? Of course, he can't label himself a criminal, or do you believe someone that has not been tried by a court of competence to be preaching guilt? BSF is certainly guilty as far as the documentaries I watched about him are concerned, there are many possible charges that would be filed against home when the time comes.

What you referred to is just an interview, and I know he would say what his lawyer(s) advised him to say. However, his innocence remains paramount unless a court decides otherwise. So, let's give investigators a chance to do their job as we seatback and watch.

It's a wonder how this guy still wasn't handcuffed. But he actually can get away with all that he did through the help of his parents and the politicians he bought. And the media is not just representing him like he is a misunderstood philanthropist but also wants the people to think that he has no intention of scamming. It wasn't premeditated.

If he isn't someone with well-connected parents, SBF would have been in jail already and could end up dead by suicide.

Sam Bankman-Fried can afford to hire some of the best lawyers in the world. I am sure he has even hired some of his defense team that would give him the best legal advice and service. Anything he says in this interview can be used against him in the court, that's why he needs to be very careful. I am sure all his statements would be based on the legal advice he has received. Therefore don't expect Sam to speak the truth because he needs to protect himself. But the truth is that he mismanaged people's funds and used them for some incriminating activities. I am sure he would not escape sanctions, if his donation beneficiaries in government doesn't influence his trial.     

He already has legal counsel who will ensure him free. A question answerable by Yes or No took a long turn, just beating around the bush.  
He's prepared to face court and it's the court that isn't prepared for him. He's got a ton of backer who are more powerful than the judges and victims.

When you have parents who has connections at the top, you might get away with things like this. His mother Barbara Fried has connection to the democratic party and having fundraising organization that caters to the party and his dad Joseph Bankman who had connection with top executives where he was able to source funds easily for his son and his political connection and when you have those combinations none of the media will not chastise him and might get away with frauds like these .

Not only parents, SBF already gain favor of lots of influential politician due to his political donations.  We might see someone being pinned on this case, and it looks like she is the girlfriend of SBF and CEO of Alameda.  I feel sorry for this lady because I think it is all SBF's plan or someone powerful that is working behind the scene and the girl is just a figurehead of the company without any authority at all.

This interview is literally only done so he can ease public pressure on federal authorities to indict him on charges related to fraud.

In essence, usually for criminal charges to be levied (criminal charges meaning the penalty being prison), SBF would have had to engaged in conduct where he knowingly created a risk of fraudulent activity and disregarded that risk. Even if he did not facilitate fraudulent transactions or sign them off, he would still be liable if he was at all aware of them.

SBF is taking the negligence angle here, in which he might concede that he should have been aware of the misconduct that was going on at FTX, but that he was not actually aware of such misconduct, thus subjecting him only to civil liability. Civil liability means fines, not prison time.

Keep in mind, every statement SBF gives is under careful advisement of an expensive legal team. This interview wasn't done so he could come clean to the public, it's strictly done to ease pressure the feds might have to indict him by the public. Theoretically, any country that had user funds stolen could levy charges against him, but they don't have jurisdiction. If SBF were to step foot in any of these countries, they could arrest him on the spot.

He did a little fuck up there and another here but he didn’t steal from his customers and bribed the democrats nooo \s

There is only one way to deal with this kind of people. We all know it but we are afraid to say it.

A punch right in the face.

The sad thing is he is never going to get it.

That would be a stupid move, because with that he would practically admit that he is guilty, and considering that he has influential friends, it is better for him to stay where he is and try to pretend that he didn't know what was really happening. Besides, do you think that a character like this who lives in luxury all his life can spend the rest of his life hiding somewhere far away from the public eye?

The fact that he is still outside the prison bars speaks volumes about his status, currently untouchable...