There is no way it's going to be fewer than 10. Probably 30 if I had to guess.

And that range sounds sensible.

My take, cynical at the root - unfortunately, is that "heads I win, tails somebody else loses" defines the low end of the premise; whereas the 100 years (times 5 for a good measure) defines the utter waste of the idea of rehabilitation.

Prison long stopped being about rehabilitation, assuming it ever was in the US. This is about punishment.

I agree. If we want harsh sentences to act as deterrents, I struggle to believe 30-40 years isn't viscerally similar to 100 years.

We don't want people thinking, I can steal a billion and if I'm caught get out in my 30s.

When you give 100 year sentences, I'm not sure what you are doing other than feeding the public's vengeance.

Another aspect (take):

> Probably 30 if I had to guess.

So he'd be in his 60s and with billions USD stashed. Can you come up with a retirement plan like that?

Parole, shortened stay?

Or rather:

He'd be killed/die in the prison; surely he'll come out destitute like a newborn baby?

Polar options abundance.

How could he stash billions when the bankruptcy estate tracked everything? That would be like the FBI overlooking Silk Road coins. There would be an obvious hole in the account records were he stashed it. Everything is traced via blockchain.