Yes it has made a difference. In white-collar crimes, prosecutors have to prove intent. That means they have to somehow find evidence that the defendant meant to do various things improperly. SBF has literally given interviews where he has stated the required intent for some of the crimes.
As an unrelated aside, note that this is also a way of punishing lower classes of people more severely. If you shoplift, prosecutors don't have to prove you meant to do that rather than just accidentally failing to pay. Generally laws for intent are for people that legislators can identify with, and there is no intent requirement for people legislators don't personally identify with.
> SBF has literally given interviews where he has stated the required intent for some of the crimes.
Do you have examples of what you are referring to? As you say, intent matters here. The vast majority of quotes I've seen from his interviews are along the lines of "I suck at accounting", but that he didn't intend to steal funds.
But again, the other reason I don't think it matters is that there were plenty of other recorded examples that do show intent, e.g. cases where SBF was lying on Twitter specifically to try to cover his tracks: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33632472
At least under CA law they do have to prove intent for shoplifting.
>Shoplifting is defined as entering a commercial establishment with an intent to commit larceny while it's open during regular business hours and the value of the property taken, or intended to be taken, is $950 or less. Any other entry into a commercial business with intent to commit larceny is burglary.
As an unrelated aside, note that this is also a way of punishing lower classes of people more severely. If you shoplift, prosecutors don't have to prove you meant to do that rather than just accidentally failing to pay. Generally laws for intent are for people that legislators can identify with, and there is no intent requirement for people legislators don't personally identify with.