[raiyu]

If you are testifying remotely, I suppose you are still under oath and have serious consequences for perjury ?

[AlexandrB]

There are theoretical consequences for lying to congress, but I can't recall a high profile case of them being applied to anyone. Famously James Clapper, then director of the NSA, told congress that the NSA does not collect data on Americans[1] which is what inspired Snowden to leak the info on NSA data collection. Despite this, he went on to continue serving as head of the NSA right up until the end of Obama's term in office.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clapper#Testimony_to_Con...

[twelve40]

yes, so he's been hard at work practicing coming up with all kinds of non-answers several interviews a day.

but seriously, I'm not sure how much they expect from this. He does have a legitimate excuse of being cut off from all the corporate data, so he can just keep replying "I'd tell you but the bankruptcy ceo took all my data".

[vkou]

They don't expect to get any useful information out of him, they expect to be doing their jobs. When this kind of disaster happens, politicians don't question the perpetrators to get any key insight into them, they do so to put on a bit of theatre, that they can later use to support legislature that they are going to draft. (Or quietly kill in committee.)

The only people who can do anything meaningful about SBF are working for the DOJ, and they don't do their work by holding public hearings.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Yes

[s1artibartfast]

Despite your unnecessarily pessimistic comment, this is one of the leading ways that White Collar criminals (rich people) do see consequences

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Martha Stewart?

[stusmall]

Well, good news. He isn't rich anymore.

[stcredzero]

More accurately, this doesn't happen except in "egregious" cases. Otherwise, if the judicial system tried to prosecute people for all lies under oath, they wouldn't have time for anything else.

Seriously. Ask someone who works as a judge or a lawyer.