You seem to continue to want to argue backwards in terms of trying to equate CZ as if he were even close to as bad as SBF, and so in that regard, you fail/refuse to recognize and appreciate that there are variations in kinds of crimes that are charged, levels of intent (as mentioned by Philip), and even differences between cooperation versus contesting charges (including working out some kind of a settlement agreement that also surely differentiates CZ from SBF (as also referred to by Philip).  It is quite a bit a BIGGER deal when anyone has breached fiduciary duties to clients as compared to some of the more amorphous charges of money laundering - but still some of the amorphous charges can also have large punishments, but they are likely not going to be considered as egregious by juries, if any one ends up getting a jury and going that far in the process... which an overwhelming majority of cases do not make it to trial (whether the trial includes a jury or not), so it is fairly typical to work out some kind of a plea, and surely people with more money are going to be in a better place to hire attorneys that are able to help them to work out plea deals, to the extent that they are not so arrogant as to not be able to work with attorneys, which publicly also seemed to be one of the difficulties that SBF was having both in terms of his going out on a dumbass public campaign to try to market his way out of his problem, but also likely problematic in terms of his belief that he would be able to testify in convincing ways when he likely had not really been very good at following coaching from attorneys, not that they are suppose to coach witnesses to lie but they can coach witnesses in terms of better ways to present answers.


From my understanding there are no terms in which CZ has to give up any ownership in Binance, and he is still able to stay on the Board of directors during the time period (isn't it 3 years?) in which he is not allowed to serve as CEO.  I am not sure if any of those terms might end up getting changed, because if some matters come into dispute (including the fact that he was not able to return to Dubai and that the govt may well be pushing for jail time longer than 18 months), other terms of the plea (settlement) could then come into question regarding if they had been entered into with sufficient levels of information on both sides (rather than possible deception that might have been at issue - or could be argued from CZ's side, if he wants to go there).


I am not sure if the matter ONLY boils down to if they can get CZ to pay the fines (remember there is a personal fine component and a company fine component) prior to the sentencing date, because surely they can work out those kinds of payment timelines that may or may not necessarily be determinative regarding whether the government pushes for more than 18 months in prison, and it is my understanding that CZ had said that he would not appeal any sentence that was 18 months or less, but he is not agreeing to any prison time that is higher than 6 months...

and sure maybe CZ's position could change on some of these matters, especially if all of the terms of the sentence are not agreed in advance in terms of what he had pled to which is admitting guilt on some of the charges in order that other charges would be dropped... so there are several advantages to both sides if there is a plea of guilt because then the govt does not have to try to prove either the  intent element (as phil mentioned) or even having to prove the underlying facts because CZ plead to the underlying facts, but if CZ (and his legal team) get the sense that he is not getting the benefit of his side of the bargain, then they might end up wanting to suggest that the plea was done under false pretenses.. which still most criminal defendants are not going to want to go down that kind of a path.. so it is unlikely that he is going to attempt to substantially argue that he was deceived into pleaing guilty.