It depends. I know I sound like a lawyer here and I apologize, but here's an example based on the letter of the law:
The text of the law:
3) if an individual abandons the agreement, the conspiracy is terminated as to him only if and when he advises those with whom he conspired of his abandonment or he informs the law enforcement authorities of the existence of the conspiracy and of his participation therein.
What does this mean IRL:
3). i)if an individual
(e.g. SBF) abandons the agreement, the conspiracy is terminated as to him only
(only SBF)
ii) if *and*
(the coordinating conjunction) when he advises those with whom he conspired of his abandonment
iii) or
(inclusive OR, so connective OR, inclusive disjunction) he informs the law enforcement authorities of the existence of the conspiracy and of his participation therein.
In court, 3ii) alone will NOT suffice because the other side can claim SBF never informed them of his abandonment, they didn't understand claiming no reasonable person would understand how the creator can abandon the conspiracy, and a myriad of other permutations.
The ONLY solution for SBF to abandon the conspiracy (maybe unscathed?) is to provide the following: SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE by signing a Proffer agreement aka "Queen for a day" that would give him a chance for the DOJ to help him with 5K1.1 MOTIONS, *AND* RULE 35 MOTIONS.
It's good to review the definition of wire fraud as interpreted by the US Supreme Court. Here's a link to a wonderful Law firm:
In Two Rulings, Supreme Court Limits Use of Mail and Wire Fraud Statutes. May 17, 2023
In this article, you will find the links to SCOTUS' opinions.
Is it essential to read and understand UNITED STATES v. SANTOS (No. 06-1005) 461 F. 3d 886, affirmed.
You can find the whole case here
SCOTUS: United States vs Santos - Money Laundering definition and then click on the links to read the opinions etc etc. It's what I have been alluding to here before vis-à-vis money laundering and its definition. Hiding money or its origin is NOT money laundering! It has to be the proceeds of a crime.
-----------------------
Hope this helps clear some confusion. Believe me, it's so confusing (because the prosecution keeps muddying the waters and moving the goalposts) that even veteran former prosecutors and judges get it wrong +90% of the time. What happens is that
courts apply deference to the agency tasked with enforcing and interpreting the statute. The instructions the courts give jurors during a trial are ALWAYS favorable to the prosecution.
Fun Fact: Federal courts don't have cameras and getting transcripts of trials is next to impossible.
There is NO access whatsoever to grand jury transcripts! None! Not even for the defendant or his lawyers.
Excerpt:
"Appeals of guilty verdicts based on insufficient evidence are reviewed according to “whether, after
viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements
beyond a reasonable doubt.” 178 However, when the appealing party has failed to raise and preserve the issue at trial, all these types
of questions are reviewed only for plain error, an even more deferential standard."
Source:
https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/02 Masur_Ouellette_ART.pdf
