SBF’s legal defense is being funded with Alameda money he gave his father(forbes.com)
forbes.com
SBF’s legal defense is being funded with Alameda money he gave his father
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahemerson/2023/03/29/sam-bankman-fried-legal-fees-funded-by-alameda-money-gifted-to-father-joe-bankman/
234 comments
Aren't tax free gifts capped at $14,000.00 per year?
Edit: Er, I guess it's $16,000.00 without needing to report it, and then anything above that can be offset against a $12 ish million lifetime exclusion.
https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/taxes/articl...
Edit: Er, I guess it's $16,000.00 without needing to report it, and then anything above that can be offset against a $12 ish million lifetime exclusion.
https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/taxes/articl...
The gift tax thing seems like a distraction. He would have needed to file a gift tax return for giving $10 million, but no taxes would be due. But he could just as easily have given $100 million, filed the return, and paid a large gift tax—he had plenty of cash floating around back then.
I guess what I’m saying is, it wasn’t a way to hide the gift, because it still triggered the need for a gift tax return filing.
I guess what I’m saying is, it wasn’t a way to hide the gift, because it still triggered the need for a gift tax return filing.
Yeah that's how I read it. He gave [possibly ill-gotten] money to his parents. If tax was involved, then the treasury might need to give that fraction back to the bankruptcy trustee. If not, great, then it's just the family that needs to disclose to the trustee.
You need to report a gift over $14k but you don't owe until much higher limits. Same as how people who make very little money have to report income even if it's lower than the lowest tax bracket.
Also, as a reminder, the gifter pays the tax and not the person who received the gift. If someone gifts you an illiquid asset, you aren't forced to go into debt to pay a tax. But the gifter has to figure things out on their end.
Also, as a reminder, the gifter pays the tax and not the person who received the gift. If someone gifts you an illiquid asset, you aren't forced to go into debt to pay a tax. But the gifter has to figure things out on their end.
This is correct. The tax thresholds are of the order of 12mm
What does the gifter pay tax on? -$14k?
Gifts larger than 14k essentially count against your eventual estate tax exclusion.
If you give away $12.06 million on the day before you die (which would be tax-free), then the entirety of your estate is taxed at 40% (both 2022 numbers). If you die without having made any gifts exceeding $14k, then the first $12.06 million of your estate is not taxed at all, and the remainder is taxed at 40%
If you give away $12.06 million on the day before you die (which would be tax-free), then the entirety of your estate is taxed at 40% (both 2022 numbers). If you die without having made any gifts exceeding $14k, then the first $12.06 million of your estate is not taxed at all, and the remainder is taxed at 40%
Not investing or financial advice. If your estate will incur said tax, be giving up to your annual exclusion till death.
The exclusion amount is also per recipient.
It's sort of how you handle assisted living costs. Everything's cheaper if you've distributed your assets beforehand.
It's also why means-testing an end of life program that only looks back X number of years is inevitably not actually testing means.
Every rich person has a guy who will tell them how to avoid it legally. Every poor person never had any money in the first place. It only ever hits middle class and upper-low class people who saved money for some of their life and were never told that they had to disburse their assets at X-1 years before they planned to need care and get hit with a huge penalty to their assistance when they inevitably have to move some of their cash around to pay for some of their expensive care.
If you don't want rich people getting public funds for things, you have to be able to look beyond their money games, which is hard, expensive, often purposely sandbagged, and not usually successful.
So just tax them their whole life instead, and let them get back some of what they put in with every other person.
Every rich person has a guy who will tell them how to avoid it legally. Every poor person never had any money in the first place. It only ever hits middle class and upper-low class people who saved money for some of their life and were never told that they had to disburse their assets at X-1 years before they planned to need care and get hit with a huge penalty to their assistance when they inevitably have to move some of their cash around to pay for some of their expensive care.
If you don't want rich people getting public funds for things, you have to be able to look beyond their money games, which is hard, expensive, often purposely sandbagged, and not usually successful.
So just tax them their whole life instead, and let them get back some of what they put in with every other person.
I would go a step further and call for an end to all means testing for anything government funded.
I am relatively poor and this will help me because even though I am poor I still have to prove I am poor which is burdensome.
I am relatively poor and this will help me because even though I am poor I still have to prove I am poor which is burdensome.
[deleted]
This isn't an income or gains tax. Not all taxes are about money gained. For example, sales tax when you pay $100 isn't negative $8, it's $8.
When gifting large amounts of money, the IRS gets more money on top (so, if you're super rich, don't gift ALL off your money, and leave some aside for tax season).
When gifting large amounts of money, the IRS gets more money on top (so, if you're super rich, don't gift ALL off your money, and leave some aside for tax season).
It says so in the article, but here's some corroboration
https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/estate-tax-and-lifetime-g...
EDIT: read a little further, guess the 11-12 million exemption only lasts until 2025, so if you can use, do it fast.
https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/estate-tax-and-lifetime-g...
EDIT: read a little further, guess the 11-12 million exemption only lasts until 2025, so if you can use, do it fast.
if the gift isn’t cash Alameda can determine the value of the gift mor or less.
pksebben(6)
>That atleast makes it harder for FTX to claw back that money.
The 'Madoff Recovery Initiative' was incredibly aggressive in going after all of Madoff's family and acquaintances. SBF's family and acquaintances are going to be fighting lawsuits for years and will lose millions.
The 'Madoff Recovery Initiative' was incredibly aggressive in going after all of Madoff's family and acquaintances. SBF's family and acquaintances are going to be fighting lawsuits for years and will lose millions.
>and will lose millions.
millions they arguably shouldn't have had in the first place, since they were proceeds of crime.
millions they arguably shouldn't have had in the first place, since they were proceeds of crime.
[deleted]
>> Atleast SBF took the extra step of first funneling money to Alameda and then directing Alameda to send it back to him and then send it to his dad as a tax free gift.
I am pretty sure it's the source of the money that matters more (legal vs. illegal) than whether the accounting tricks are legally sound.
What you're saying sounds like "at least he wasn't a complete numb-nuts", but that's not much of an "at least" in this scenario.
I am pretty sure the courts will be looking for an "at least he wasn't stealing from his customers".
At least, that's the sane hope.
I am pretty sure it's the source of the money that matters more (legal vs. illegal) than whether the accounting tricks are legally sound.
What you're saying sounds like "at least he wasn't a complete numb-nuts", but that's not much of an "at least" in this scenario.
I am pretty sure the courts will be looking for an "at least he wasn't stealing from his customers".
At least, that's the sane hope.
Also if the father is “in on it”, then this would also lead to an additional conspiracy charge that adds him to the cabal.
> One interesting thing a lawyer pointed out to me is that a lawyer has a duty to ensure that the money used to pay them wasn't from the proceeds of a crime.
I don't think this is true in the US. Lawyers do not have any obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act or laws that would require this and there are other things like the text below that would make prosecuting a lawyer for this very difficult,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1957
> (1)the term “monetary transaction” means the deposit, withdrawal, transfer, or exchange, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, of funds or a monetary instrument (as defined in section 1956(c)(5) of this title) by, through, or to a financial institution (as defined in section 1956 of this title), including any transaction that would be a financial transaction under section 1956(c)(4)(B) of this title, but such term *does not include any transaction necessary to preserve a person’s right to representation as guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the Constitution;*
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-105000-money-laundering
> Because the Department firmly believes that attorneys representing clients in criminal matters must not be hampered in their ability to effectively and ethically represent their clients within the bounds of the law, the Department, as a matter of policy, will not prosecute attorneys under § 1957 based upon the receipt of property constituting bona fide fees for the legitimate representation in a criminal matter, except if (1) *there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the attorney had actual knowledge of the illegal origin of the specific property received (prosecution is not permitted if the only proof of knowledge is evidence of willful blindness);* and (2) such evidence does not consist of (a) confidential communications made by the client preliminary to and with regard to undertaking representation in the criminal matter; or (b) confidential communications made during the course of representation in the criminal matter; or (c) other information obtained by the attorney during the course of the representation and in furtherance of the obligation to effectively represent the client.
I don't think this is true in the US. Lawyers do not have any obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act or laws that would require this and there are other things like the text below that would make prosecuting a lawyer for this very difficult,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1957
> (1)the term “monetary transaction” means the deposit, withdrawal, transfer, or exchange, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, of funds or a monetary instrument (as defined in section 1956(c)(5) of this title) by, through, or to a financial institution (as defined in section 1956 of this title), including any transaction that would be a financial transaction under section 1956(c)(4)(B) of this title, but such term *does not include any transaction necessary to preserve a person’s right to representation as guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the Constitution;*
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-105000-money-laundering
> Because the Department firmly believes that attorneys representing clients in criminal matters must not be hampered in their ability to effectively and ethically represent their clients within the bounds of the law, the Department, as a matter of policy, will not prosecute attorneys under § 1957 based upon the receipt of property constituting bona fide fees for the legitimate representation in a criminal matter, except if (1) *there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the attorney had actual knowledge of the illegal origin of the specific property received (prosecution is not permitted if the only proof of knowledge is evidence of willful blindness);* and (2) such evidence does not consist of (a) confidential communications made by the client preliminary to and with regard to undertaking representation in the criminal matter; or (b) confidential communications made during the course of representation in the criminal matter; or (c) other information obtained by the attorney during the course of the representation and in furtherance of the obligation to effectively represent the client.
I appreciate your response and this is what I also countered with, though not as nicely cited:)
this is a good response
https://www.moneylaunderingnews.com/2018/09/use-of-tainted-a...
Turns out its not black and white as people expect
- lawyers fees can be clawed back due to asset forfeiture.
> Federal forfeiture laws, on the other hand, pose a different kind of risk for lawyers — one that the Safe Harbor Provision does not protect against. Forfeiture laws are premised, in part, on the notion that tainted assets belong to the government as of the date the underlying offense was committed
- while its true that courts have decided that taking all of a persons money so they can't pay for their defense has been ruled illegal by the courts the amount of money that lawyers think the client has can be significantly reduced by the courts. So if SBF has say $20M now, the courts can claw back 75% of that leaving the client with far less to pay than the lawyers originally though.
Or put another way, you are entitled to a defense, you are not entitled to have unlimited funds to pay for your defense.
Also given that the money is coming from SBF' dad( a third party) and not SBF this seems to be relevant.
> Moreover, the Fourth Circuit has held in a divided decision that the Safe Harbor Provision does not apply in instances whereupon an attorney “receives and deposits” tainted funds from a third-party payer.
this is a good response
https://www.moneylaunderingnews.com/2018/09/use-of-tainted-a...
Turns out its not black and white as people expect
- lawyers fees can be clawed back due to asset forfeiture.
> Federal forfeiture laws, on the other hand, pose a different kind of risk for lawyers — one that the Safe Harbor Provision does not protect against. Forfeiture laws are premised, in part, on the notion that tainted assets belong to the government as of the date the underlying offense was committed
- while its true that courts have decided that taking all of a persons money so they can't pay for their defense has been ruled illegal by the courts the amount of money that lawyers think the client has can be significantly reduced by the courts. So if SBF has say $20M now, the courts can claw back 75% of that leaving the client with far less to pay than the lawyers originally though.
Or put another way, you are entitled to a defense, you are not entitled to have unlimited funds to pay for your defense.
Also given that the money is coming from SBF' dad( a third party) and not SBF this seems to be relevant.
> Moreover, the Fourth Circuit has held in a divided decision that the Safe Harbor Provision does not apply in instances whereupon an attorney “receives and deposits” tainted funds from a third-party payer.
Yes that's true, in fact they can freeze some of your untainted money pending trial in order to preserve it for forfeiture. I just don't think the lawyer would get in trouble for it and in the worst case would have to give back some of the money. If you read the Blair decision it is way different than this case because he was laundering money on behalf of his narcotics trafficking clients through real estate.
“I’ll give my ill gotten gains to someone who technically wasn’t involved (until they accepted my money)” couldn’t possibly be a new trick. (Hypothetically that is, if SBF actually did a crime; I’m not following the case).
> One interesting thing a lawyer pointed out to me is that a lawyer has a duty to ensure that the money used to pay them wasn't from the proceeds of a crime.
If that's true, it seems a bit ridiculous. SBF is pleading not guilty. Are his lawyers supposed to do their own little investigation to figure out whether their client is actually guilty?
If that's true, it seems a bit ridiculous. SBF is pleading not guilty. Are his lawyers supposed to do their own little investigation to figure out whether their client is actually guilty?
> Are his lawyers supposed to do their own little investigation to figure out whether their client is actually guilty?
Umm, yes? Not because of the money thing, but in order to do their job properly.
I'd think that if they were doing their job properly, it would be pretty clear pretty quickly whether or not their client is guilty. And whether or not their client is guilty is important for them to know, because it will definitely affect how they proceed with defending their client.
Umm, yes? Not because of the money thing, but in order to do their job properly.
I'd think that if they were doing their job properly, it would be pretty clear pretty quickly whether or not their client is guilty. And whether or not their client is guilty is important for them to know, because it will definitely affect how they proceed with defending their client.
Well as I had it explained to me.
Run the following thought experiment.
You are a lawyer. Your client is accused of robbing a bank. The bank has the serial numbers of the bills taken. Your client pays you in cash and the serial numbers match the stolen ones.
if you agree that you are being paid by the proceeds of a crime, then congrats you agree with the law and now all you are figuring out is where the line is.
Turns out its somewhere between a forensic audit of your client and 100% certainty that you're being paid with stolen funds.
The government or prosecution claiming the funds you're being paid with are from the proceeds of crime is well within the ethical and legal bounds that lawyers are held to.
Like many issues when it comes to professionals, there is often a burden on the professional to make sure they are acting ethically. Engineers can't build a building to a clients spec if it would be dangerous. Doctors have a duty of care to not harm a patient even if the patient wants to be harmed and lawyers have a duty of care to know the origins of the funds paying them.
That's one of the burdens of being a professional
Courts are more than happy to adjudicate if there is a gray area.
Also if that doesn't convince you then remember, people can be forced to hand back assets that were stolen even if the owner had no way of knowing ti was stolen. The lawyers don't want to spend all that time defending SBF and be paid with stolen funds, just to have the courts come and tell them to pay back the money as it never belonged to SBF at all.
It's in their own best interests to know and vet where the money came from.
Run the following thought experiment.
You are a lawyer. Your client is accused of robbing a bank. The bank has the serial numbers of the bills taken. Your client pays you in cash and the serial numbers match the stolen ones.
if you agree that you are being paid by the proceeds of a crime, then congrats you agree with the law and now all you are figuring out is where the line is.
Turns out its somewhere between a forensic audit of your client and 100% certainty that you're being paid with stolen funds.
The government or prosecution claiming the funds you're being paid with are from the proceeds of crime is well within the ethical and legal bounds that lawyers are held to.
Like many issues when it comes to professionals, there is often a burden on the professional to make sure they are acting ethically. Engineers can't build a building to a clients spec if it would be dangerous. Doctors have a duty of care to not harm a patient even if the patient wants to be harmed and lawyers have a duty of care to know the origins of the funds paying them.
That's one of the burdens of being a professional
Courts are more than happy to adjudicate if there is a gray area.
Also if that doesn't convince you then remember, people can be forced to hand back assets that were stolen even if the owner had no way of knowing ti was stolen. The lawyers don't want to spend all that time defending SBF and be paid with stolen funds, just to have the courts come and tell them to pay back the money as it never belonged to SBF at all.
It's in their own best interests to know and vet where the money came from.
In the sense of whether their client has committed the underlying acts they are accused of, yes, this is something a lawyer would definitely want to know, and try to find out, as it effects what legal defenses can actually work vs. are likely to be swiftly rebutted.
(I realize there a much broader claims being made in this thread, like about where the payment money is bad and what obligations that prompts. I'm not attempting to address issues such as those, just the narrower topic above.)
(I realize there a much broader claims being made in this thread, like about where the payment money is bad and what obligations that prompts. I'm not attempting to address issues such as those, just the narrower topic above.)
> Are his lawyers supposed to do their own little investigation to figure out whether their client is actually guilty?
Actually yes, they are supposed to do that. Not because of money, but as they are preparing the defense.
Actually yes, they are supposed to do that. Not because of money, but as they are preparing the defense.
That's besides the point though. Consider the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" - a fundamental pillar of the justice system. It is not the job of a lawyer to determine whether a defendant is guilty or innocent; they are only responsible for presenting evidence and arguments to support their client's case. Ultimately, it is the judge or jury who must decide whether to convict or acquit. The whole process is designed to determine guilt. Requiring a lawyer to know whether their client is guilty in advance amounts to asking them to predict the outcome of that process, to foresee the future.
PS: I am not trying to defend SBF here and I hope that that any money linked to Alameda/FTX, including the money he sent to friends and family, is clawed back. But that's a separate issue.
PS: I am not trying to defend SBF here and I hope that that any money linked to Alameda/FTX, including the money he sent to friends and family, is clawed back. But that's a separate issue.
> Consider the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" - a fundamental pillar of the justice system.
It's "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". Not necessarily in your lawyer's office.
> Requiring a lawyer to know whether their client is guilty in advance amounts to asking them to predict the outcome of that process, to foresee the future.
No, that's a different thing. Requiring a lawyer to know the facts is not requiring the lawyer to know how the court will rule in the case.
It's "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". Not necessarily in your lawyer's office.
> Requiring a lawyer to know whether their client is guilty in advance amounts to asking them to predict the outcome of that process, to foresee the future.
No, that's a different thing. Requiring a lawyer to know the facts is not requiring the lawyer to know how the court will rule in the case.
>Consider the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" - a fundamental pillar of the justice system.
Let's not put the cart before the horse. It's the law firms obligations to make sure they aren't participating in a crime, it has nothing to do with assuming someone's guilt.
Let's not put the cart before the horse. It's the law firms obligations to make sure they aren't participating in a crime, it has nothing to do with assuming someone's guilt.
So tell me: if the lawyers get paid by SBF, are they participating in a crime? Doesn't the answer depend on whether SBF is guilty or not?
If they're knowingly being paid from the proceeds of a crime then yes, they're participating in the crime.
If he's convicted, yeah. Based on the facts, they are getting paid by money he stole himself and directed to his family.
Sorry, do you think ignorance is an excuse for a crime? I don't believe there is an intent requirement, so their mental state at the time of receiving the money is of no consequence.
Yes, it ought to be. Otherwise, you would be taking a big gamble anytime you accepted money from strangers. It would be quite impractical. Also, it goes beyond mere ignorance, it's unknowable. SBF's lawyers will find out whether he is guilty on the day that the verdict is pronounced.
>Yes, it ought to be.
Lol, since when? Oh, your honor, I didn't know murder was BAD!
> Otherwise, you would be taking a big gamble anytime you accepted money from strangers.
Really? Hasn't been an issue for me at all. Are you sure it's that big of a gamble? Maybe you should think about the kind of people you are accepting money from?
> It would be quite impractical.
As I said, hasn't been a problem for me. And I'm an attorney too! I get paid!
> Also, it goes beyond mere ignorance, it's unknowable. SBF's lawyers will find out whether he is guilty on the day that the verdict is pronounced.
This is literally the opposite of what you described. They are lawyers with expertise in this exact kind of crime and they are well aware of the risk presented by taking money from him. They know he stole money. They know he stole money and saved it for himself.
Lol, since when? Oh, your honor, I didn't know murder was BAD!
> Otherwise, you would be taking a big gamble anytime you accepted money from strangers.
Really? Hasn't been an issue for me at all. Are you sure it's that big of a gamble? Maybe you should think about the kind of people you are accepting money from?
> It would be quite impractical.
As I said, hasn't been a problem for me. And I'm an attorney too! I get paid!
> Also, it goes beyond mere ignorance, it's unknowable. SBF's lawyers will find out whether he is guilty on the day that the verdict is pronounced.
This is literally the opposite of what you described. They are lawyers with expertise in this exact kind of crime and they are well aware of the risk presented by taking money from him. They know he stole money. They know he stole money and saved it for himself.
I was not talking about murder, I was talking about receiving money. It has to be the least enforced law ever... Because the chances of breaking that law as a phone company, or as a taxi driver are close to 100%.
It's a bit sad that you are an attorney and don't seem to believe in due process. If his lawyers "know" that he is guilty, I hope for his sake that he finds lawyers that don't "know" it, given that he is pleading not guilty.
It's a bit sad that you are an attorney and don't seem to believe in due process. If his lawyers "know" that he is guilty, I hope for his sake that he finds lawyers that don't "know" it, given that he is pleading not guilty.
>I was not talking about murder, I was talking about receiving money.
Well, when should it be an excuse? You didn't really seem to offer any bounds, and I put it as "a crime".
>It has to be the least enforced law ever... Because the chances of breaking that law as a phone company, or as a taxi driver are close to 100%.
I don't think the law is really targeting taxi companies or phone companies. It's targeting people who abet criminals by taking their money in exchange for services or goods.
>It's a bit sad that you are an attorney and don't seem to believe in due process.
It's not a surprise that you think that considering you clearly have no idea what due process is.
>If his lawyers "know" that he is guilty, I hope for his sake that he finds lawyers that don't "know" it, given that he is pleading not guilty.
Geez, I can't state it enough for you, huh? "Knowledge" is not an element of the crime. So everytime you say they "know" something, it's completely irrelevant to the issue and only reflects your willful misunderstanding of this entire conversation.
Well, when should it be an excuse? You didn't really seem to offer any bounds, and I put it as "a crime".
>It has to be the least enforced law ever... Because the chances of breaking that law as a phone company, or as a taxi driver are close to 100%.
I don't think the law is really targeting taxi companies or phone companies. It's targeting people who abet criminals by taking their money in exchange for services or goods.
>It's a bit sad that you are an attorney and don't seem to believe in due process.
It's not a surprise that you think that considering you clearly have no idea what due process is.
>If his lawyers "know" that he is guilty, I hope for his sake that he finds lawyers that don't "know" it, given that he is pleading not guilty.
Geez, I can't state it enough for you, huh? "Knowledge" is not an element of the crime. So everytime you say they "know" something, it's completely irrelevant to the issue and only reflects your willful misunderstanding of this entire conversation.
> Atleast SBF took the extra step of first funneling money to Alameda and then directing Alameda to send it back to him and then send it to his dad as a tax free gift.
Isn't this worse for him in the long run if he's found guilty though? Words like "structuring", "posturing", "evasion" come to mind...
Isn't this worse for him in the long run if he's found guilty though? Words like "structuring", "posturing", "evasion" come to mind...
> Words like "structuring"
As much as I want to see that scammer and his family rot in jail , as much as I find "structuring" totally unfair.
If you set the limit to, say "$1 K / day" and then someone does "$1 K / day, everyday", it's not doing anything wrong. Instead of inventing the concept of "structuring", instead write the actual limits more clearly: "$1 K / day, $10 K / year max" (for example). Then it's clear that the limit is $1 K / day max and that you can only do it up to 10 times a year.
For otherwise it's just one of the oh-so-many arbitrary rules invented so that even honest people may be, unknowingly, doing something illegal.
Laws against structuring makes me think of this: "The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state".
The state should make the law clear or go fuck itself.
As much as I want to see that scammer and his family rot in jail , as much as I find "structuring" totally unfair.
If you set the limit to, say "$1 K / day" and then someone does "$1 K / day, everyday", it's not doing anything wrong. Instead of inventing the concept of "structuring", instead write the actual limits more clearly: "$1 K / day, $10 K / year max" (for example). Then it's clear that the limit is $1 K / day max and that you can only do it up to 10 times a year.
For otherwise it's just one of the oh-so-many arbitrary rules invented so that even honest people may be, unknowingly, doing something illegal.
Laws against structuring makes me think of this: "The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state".
The state should make the law clear or go fuck itself.
I’m sure Stanford considers this ethical behavior by his father.
Stealing money then gifting to yourself via a trusted straw man? Now that's effective altruism!
(tangent) Ok this confuses me:
> (in December, their $1.8 million Palo Alto home was used to secure a $250 million bail package after Bankman-Fried was released on a personal recognizance bond.
Their Palo Alto home is worth only $1.8M? Do they live in a 1BR/0.5BA shed?
edit: Apparently the assessed value (for property taxes) is $1.8M. But realtor sites estimate it at $3.1M, and it was apparently renting for $12,000/month back in 2013. Still cheaper than I thought for a 4-br home on Stanford's Dish
https://sfstandard.com/business/inside-sam-bankman-frieds-pa...
> (in December, their $1.8 million Palo Alto home was used to secure a $250 million bail package after Bankman-Fried was released on a personal recognizance bond.
Their Palo Alto home is worth only $1.8M? Do they live in a 1BR/0.5BA shed?
edit: Apparently the assessed value (for property taxes) is $1.8M. But realtor sites estimate it at $3.1M, and it was apparently renting for $12,000/month back in 2013. Still cheaper than I thought for a 4-br home on Stanford's Dish
https://sfstandard.com/business/inside-sam-bankman-frieds-pa...
The house is on the Stanford campus, and is under Stanford’s control. It can only be sold to Stanford employees, so it limits the value.
It seems weird that they could us a property constrained like that to secure a bail.
Why not? Many houses can be constrained by a HOA, state law etc. It‘s value and market value can presumably still be determined, so I would assume it can be used.
$250 million bail secured by a $1.8 million house and that's the weird part?
There’s actually nothing at all weird about that.
Only because federal courts are consistently weird about it! :-p
From an objective, outside perspective, it's definitely weird to say, "Put up $X to assure us you'll actually appear for trial. Oh, you're putting up .01X? Okay, we're cool."
Like, even accepting the validity/logic of the cash bail system, they should just be honest and call it .01X bail. The full X is never actually used for anything beyond "look at us, we're a serious court, taking this flight risk seriously".
(To pre-empt a thoroughly well-tread response from the previous threads: Yes, I know, in SBF's case, the parents are on the hook for the rest of the X, so X is, in a sense, "used". But their net worth is nowhere near X -- more like .04X -- so that just pushes the farce ratio down to .96X, which, while better than .99X, is still pretty darn close to X.)
My earlier comments about this absurdity:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34810830
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34599868
From an objective, outside perspective, it's definitely weird to say, "Put up $X to assure us you'll actually appear for trial. Oh, you're putting up .01X? Okay, we're cool."
Like, even accepting the validity/logic of the cash bail system, they should just be honest and call it .01X bail. The full X is never actually used for anything beyond "look at us, we're a serious court, taking this flight risk seriously".
(To pre-empt a thoroughly well-tread response from the previous threads: Yes, I know, in SBF's case, the parents are on the hook for the rest of the X, so X is, in a sense, "used". But their net worth is nowhere near X -- more like .04X -- so that just pushes the farce ratio down to .96X, which, while better than .99X, is still pretty darn close to X.)
My earlier comments about this absurdity:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34810830
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34599868
> From an objective, outside perspective, it's definitely weird to say, "Put up $X to assure us you'll actually appear for trial. Oh, you're putting up .01X? Okay, we're cool."
What is historically weird in the history of money-involved bail is the practice of having a penalty plus either full-value security or arms-length employment of a government-licensed agent as surety with a government-set fee schedule; penalty, surety, and security are three separate levers to acheive compliance.
What’s weird from a system outside of money bail world is...money bail.
The federal system of the courts having freedom to adjust the compliance levers independently to acheive what they feel is necessary sufficiently acheive compliance is weird only from the perspective of the system that has evolved away from that in state practice (and the even more divergent image of that state practice that has been advanced by popular media portrayals and misunderstandings.)
> Like, even accepting the validity/logic of the cash bail system, they should just be honest and call it .01X bail
Would you view a $100,000 non-dischargeable, non-expiring debt to the federal government when you have $100,000 in current assets as equivalent to $10 million non-dischargeable, non-expiring debt to the federal government when you have $100,000 in current assets?
What is historically weird in the history of money-involved bail is the practice of having a penalty plus either full-value security or arms-length employment of a government-licensed agent as surety with a government-set fee schedule; penalty, surety, and security are three separate levers to acheive compliance.
What’s weird from a system outside of money bail world is...money bail.
The federal system of the courts having freedom to adjust the compliance levers independently to acheive what they feel is necessary sufficiently acheive compliance is weird only from the perspective of the system that has evolved away from that in state practice (and the even more divergent image of that state practice that has been advanced by popular media portrayals and misunderstandings.)
> Like, even accepting the validity/logic of the cash bail system, they should just be honest and call it .01X bail
Would you view a $100,000 non-dischargeable, non-expiring debt to the federal government when you have $100,000 in current assets as equivalent to $10 million non-dischargeable, non-expiring debt to the federal government when you have $100,000 in current assets?
I wasn't criticizing additional means to achieve compliance -- I don't know what you think you were addressing there.
>Would you view a $100,000 non-dischargeable, non-expiring debt to the federal government when you have $100,000 in current assets as equivalent to $10 million non-dischargeable, non-expiring debt to the federal government when you have $100,000 in current assets?
Would you view the $10 million as anything other than a number that attempts to sound big but will not have any meaningful impact?
I can see $100k vs $200k as being a meaningful distinction, but not $100k vs $10 million (re-read the farce-ratio part).
>What’s weird from a system outside of money bail world is...money bail.
Did you miss this part?
>>Like, even accepting the validity/logic of the cash bail system,
>Would you view a $100,000 non-dischargeable, non-expiring debt to the federal government when you have $100,000 in current assets as equivalent to $10 million non-dischargeable, non-expiring debt to the federal government when you have $100,000 in current assets?
Would you view the $10 million as anything other than a number that attempts to sound big but will not have any meaningful impact?
I can see $100k vs $200k as being a meaningful distinction, but not $100k vs $10 million (re-read the farce-ratio part).
>What’s weird from a system outside of money bail world is...money bail.
Did you miss this part?
>>Like, even accepting the validity/logic of the cash bail system,
> Did you miss this part?
Well, I addressed:
(1) What was weird within the history of money-involved bail, and
(2) What was weird outside that context, and
(3) Why the federal system was not #1, and
(4) What context the federal system was weird in.
So…no?
Did you miss…my entire post?
Well, I addressed:
(1) What was weird within the history of money-involved bail, and
(2) What was weird outside that context, and
(3) Why the federal system was not #1, and
(4) What context the federal system was weird in.
So…no?
Did you miss…my entire post?
I missed what it was responding to beyond “look I can show off my knowledge and my proud opposition to cash bail”.
If you want to dispute the “not weird” label, you should reply to the person originally making it. As it stands, you’re responding to something I didn’t say while implying you’re correcting something about it and getting in your virtuous anti-cash bail jabs (to say nothing of the word salad in your paragraphs 1 and 4 — try quotes or something to make it easier to parse).
If you want to dispute the “not weird” label, you should reply to the person originally making it. As it stands, you’re responding to something I didn’t say while implying you’re correcting something about it and getting in your virtuous anti-cash bail jabs (to say nothing of the word salad in your paragraphs 1 and 4 — try quotes or something to make it easier to parse).
It’s a silly game they play, but the fact that it’s common means there’s nothing weird about it happening here.
That's exactly the distinction I was making in the first two paragraphs, about "weird" relative to existing practice vs "weird" relative to the outside world's standards for reasonable behavior.
I suppose Stanford could buy it back for the agreed to price thus providing them cash. Seems they don't need it however.
I think you make a great point and I agree, but to play devils advocate for a second...
Do we think Stanford is lacking in people willing to live there? I bet it may even increase the chance (so long as the HOA is not all that bad!)
Do we think Stanford is lacking in people willing to live there? I bet it may even increase the chance (so long as the HOA is not all that bad!)
You're right, the thing limiting the value is not demand - there are more than enough faculty and high-level staff that want to live there.
The thing limiting the value is the other restrictions that Stanford imposes on these houses - namely they essentially control the price the houses sell for because they all have to be financed through a Stanford-controlled lending program.
The thing limiting the value is the other restrictions that Stanford imposes on these houses - namely they essentially control the price the houses sell for because they all have to be financed through a Stanford-controlled lending program.
The house is on Stanford land and so does can only be sold to Stanford faculty or staff. In fact, it's technically not even owned, it is leased from the university.
This changes the pool of potential buyers, and therefore the market is quite different than the normal Palo Alto market.
This changes the pool of potential buyers, and therefore the market is quite different than the normal Palo Alto market.
They live in housing that can only be purchased by Stanford professors.
[deleted]
Looking right now at listings in Palo Alto, the few things in that range ($1.5M-$2M) are 2-3 bedroom, 1-3 bath, 1,200-1,900 sq. ft.
Whoa.
My GUESS is that since he's being prosecuted for fraud, et al, they can't say these were illegally obtained (innocent until proven guilty) and therefore they can't seize the funds yet.
And if the lawyers are in on it, they're over billing and keeping building an escrow fund that would go back to one of them at the end.
The scumminess is rather impressive.
My GUESS is that since he's being prosecuted for fraud, et al, they can't say these were illegally obtained (innocent until proven guilty) and therefore they can't seize the funds yet.
And if the lawyers are in on it, they're over billing and keeping building an escrow fund that would go back to one of them at the end.
The scumminess is rather impressive.
Prosecutors might not be able to immediately seize assets, however if they have evidence that those assets were obtained through criminal activity then they can ask the court to freeze the assets pending the outcome of a criminal trial.
> And if the lawyers are in on it, they're over billing and keeping building an escrow fund that would go back to one of them at the end.
The ones in charge of the bankruptcy are also bleeding the customers and investors dry. They charged $700 million in the Madoff case. There are $10 bn missing here. It's not unthinkable they'll steal 10% of that.
They are vermins, just as scummy as SBF. But it's legal.
The ones in charge of the bankruptcy are also bleeding the customers and investors dry. They charged $700 million in the Madoff case. There are $10 bn missing here. It's not unthinkable they'll steal 10% of that.
They are vermins, just as scummy as SBF. But it's legal.
Civil forfeiture law says the money can be seized on mere suspicion of being involved in a crime.
There's an interesting ethical dilemma and it must apply to lots of cases.
It seems obvious that nobody should benefit from the results of their crime.* But if the accused is innocent until convicted, shouldn't it be OK to spend the ill gotten gains on their defense? After all, if they win the gains were legitimate, and by induction they were legit until conviction.
How is this circle squared in practice?
* this principle is more easily stated than enforced. Some places don't allow convicted criminals to earn any money from writing a book about their crimes (this rule seems reasonable) but where does it end? Apparently Bernie Madoff got respect in prison for the magnitude of his theft. That was a benefit of sorts...
It seems obvious that nobody should benefit from the results of their crime.* But if the accused is innocent until convicted, shouldn't it be OK to spend the ill gotten gains on their defense? After all, if they win the gains were legitimate, and by induction they were legit until conviction.
How is this circle squared in practice?
* this principle is more easily stated than enforced. Some places don't allow convicted criminals to earn any money from writing a book about their crimes (this rule seems reasonable) but where does it end? Apparently Bernie Madoff got respect in prison for the magnitude of his theft. That was a benefit of sorts...
This is basically what civil forfeiture is designed for (although it's being severely abused). The cops arrest you and seize all assets that are suspected of being used in or obtained by the suspected crime.
This has been heavily abused in California and elsewhere [1][2] to seize assets from marijuana dispensaries or "suspected drug criminals". Cops seize product and money, never file charges, and then let the business owners fight for months/years to get their property back (often times with the seized product having long since expired), despite no charges having been filed.
IMO it's an egregious violation of the 4th amendment and it's maddening that more isn't being done to stop the practice.
[1] https://reason.com/2022/02/04/a-california-sheriff-remains-f... [2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken
This has been heavily abused in California and elsewhere [1][2] to seize assets from marijuana dispensaries or "suspected drug criminals". Cops seize product and money, never file charges, and then let the business owners fight for months/years to get their property back (often times with the seized product having long since expired), despite no charges having been filed.
IMO it's an egregious violation of the 4th amendment and it's maddening that more isn't being done to stop the practice.
[1] https://reason.com/2022/02/04/a-california-sheriff-remains-f... [2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken
> This is basically what civil forfeiture is designed for (although it’s being severely abused).
No, this is basically what criminal forfeiture, and freezing assets potentially subject to it, is designed for.
Civil forfeiture was designed for trade protectionism in the British Empire, but then it became an end-run around criminal process in the US, particularly around Prohibition.
No, this is basically what criminal forfeiture, and freezing assets potentially subject to it, is designed for.
Civil forfeiture was designed for trade protectionism in the British Empire, but then it became an end-run around criminal process in the US, particularly around Prohibition.
[deleted]
How does the law work? If you nab a pile of money from your customers and give it to your family, and then get sued, what happens? If you lose, does the court reverse all the transactions and give it to the creditors? Or can you just have your parents give you money to live off when you're out of jail? Surely not?
FTX creditors will presumably sue SBF's parents in US civil court and claim fraudulent conveyance. The plaintiffs will certainly ask the court to freeze those assets and not allow them to be squandered on criminal trial defense, but who knows whether the court would approve such a motion.
I believe the creditors would have to challenge the gift as a "fraudulent transfer", based on the idea that at the time the giver knew they were open to a huge liability from having taken the money in the first place. And then another similar step to go after the money that went to the attorneys.
And in this case the "creditor" would be the FTX bankruptcy estate, led by whomever has been appointed the receiver. Theoretically they should be working for creditors of FTX, but can obviously have their own motivations of expediency, not wanting to rock the boat by suing another firm, etc.
And in this case the "creditor" would be the FTX bankruptcy estate, led by whomever has been appointed the receiver. Theoretically they should be working for creditors of FTX, but can obviously have their own motivations of expediency, not wanting to rock the boat by suing another firm, etc.
You always hear RICO get thrown around in these sorts of things, which allegedly allows the government to seize anything obtained as part of a criminal enterprise, but I'd need a lawyer to weigh in and determine whether that's actually true and whether RICO would apply to this case.
A good guideline to use in internet discussions where this is raised is: It’s never lupus. Er, RICO, never RICO.
This is…not an exceptional case in that regard, AFAICT.
(RICO has a very specific definition of a criminal enterprise which, while it may occasionally apply to something that doesn’t look very much like the Mafia, usually doesn’t. It is not “any enterprise that involves crime”. There are a whole lot of predicate offenses, but they aren’t all crimes, and the enterprise has to relate to them in a particular way.)
This is…not an exceptional case in that regard, AFAICT.
(RICO has a very specific definition of a criminal enterprise which, while it may occasionally apply to something that doesn’t look very much like the Mafia, usually doesn’t. It is not “any enterprise that involves crime”. There are a whole lot of predicate offenses, but they aren’t all crimes, and the enterprise has to relate to them in a particular way.)
RICO usually doesn't apply: https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-...
It takes time to investigate the transfers and prove they were fraud proceeds before possibly clawing them back...as the investigation lingers, prosecutors will likely ask SBF's dad to return that money.
As far as I understand the law, not being an actual lawyer, this is the "rationale" behind asset seizure: prevent a criminal from funding his or her defense with the proceeds of criminal activity. Obviously in the poster-child case, they haven't been convicted of anything yet.
I'm not defending asset seizure: it's become a way for the government to steal assets without trial. But SBF cleverly made it what lawyers like to call a "close legal question" by funneling the money to his father as a gift.
I'm not defending asset seizure: it's become a way for the government to steal assets without trial. But SBF cleverly made it what lawyers like to call a "close legal question" by funneling the money to his father as a gift.
This isn’t that money! It’s entirely different money I saved while spending the Alameda cash!
Forbes has carved a uniquely slimely niche for itself. (These days I almost look at a Forbes promotion of a startup as a negative signal.) At the bottom of that article there are "more from Forbes" stories on the (now) 'bad bad' Sam. Search for Forbes articles from before the reveal for "more from Forbes" stories which I guess they didn't have room to link to in the bottom.
(Naturally pointing out Forbes' role in pimping Sam Bankman-Fried in no way is supporting the 'wunderkind' or his & co.'s fraud.)
(Naturally pointing out Forbes' role in pimping Sam Bankman-Fried in no way is supporting the 'wunderkind' or his & co.'s fraud.)
Here are 2 questions I have about this whole FTX saga:
1. How is it that a supposed $250 million bond was secured with (according to news articles) significantly less value than that in assets? How does that work? The collateral seems to be his parents' house, a few hundred thousand in cash assets and little else beyond that. Huh? So what makes this a $250 million bond?
2. The government can (and routinely does) seize assets without the owner being convicted of anything. Hell, they do it when the owner never gets even charged with anything. To me, this is a clear 4A violation and should be unconstitutional but the 4A holds no sway over current judicial politics so here we are.
In this case we have clear evidence of fraud. Pretty much anything SBF touched with FTX or Alameda money can quite reasonably be presumed to be the proceeds of crime. Why on Earth in this case is the government not seizing, well, everything?
Bear in mind that the legal standard for this is quite broad. If you buy a $1 million home with $100,000 of fruad proceeds and $900,000 of your own money, those fraud proceeds taint the entire asset, not just the portion directly tied to fraud. As such, any money given by SBF to anyone poisons pretty much every asset the gift-receiver owns. The government would be well within its right to seize or at least freeze pretty much everything.
So how have SBF's parents escaped the government's seizure net?
If you think about it, it's the equivalent of robbing a bank and then using those stolen funds to pay for your bond and lawyer. The government wouldn't stand for that in the case of armed robbery. Why are they here?
1. How is it that a supposed $250 million bond was secured with (according to news articles) significantly less value than that in assets? How does that work? The collateral seems to be his parents' house, a few hundred thousand in cash assets and little else beyond that. Huh? So what makes this a $250 million bond?
2. The government can (and routinely does) seize assets without the owner being convicted of anything. Hell, they do it when the owner never gets even charged with anything. To me, this is a clear 4A violation and should be unconstitutional but the 4A holds no sway over current judicial politics so here we are.
In this case we have clear evidence of fraud. Pretty much anything SBF touched with FTX or Alameda money can quite reasonably be presumed to be the proceeds of crime. Why on Earth in this case is the government not seizing, well, everything?
Bear in mind that the legal standard for this is quite broad. If you buy a $1 million home with $100,000 of fruad proceeds and $900,000 of your own money, those fraud proceeds taint the entire asset, not just the portion directly tied to fraud. As such, any money given by SBF to anyone poisons pretty much every asset the gift-receiver owns. The government would be well within its right to seize or at least freeze pretty much everything.
So how have SBF's parents escaped the government's seizure net?
If you think about it, it's the equivalent of robbing a bank and then using those stolen funds to pay for your bond and lawyer. The government wouldn't stand for that in the case of armed robbery. Why are they here?
> How is it that a supposed $250 million bond was secured with (according to news articles) significantly less value than that in assets? How does that work?
That’s…just the way federal bail tend to work [0].
> So what makes this a $250 million bond?
Because that’s what SBF and his parents have consented to become jointly and severally liable for, with essentially no available defense (bail forfeiture is essentially an automatic default judgement) if he fails to appear, etc. The “bond” is the agreement to be subject to that liability. Security for the bond is a separate thing, and unlike many state systems, full-value security or the involvement of a licensed bail agent isn’t a norm that applies.
> The government can (and routinely does) seize assets without the owner being convicted of anything. Hell, they do it when the owner never gets even charged with anything. To me, this is a clear 4A violation and should be unconstitutional but the 4A holds no sway over current judicial politics so here we are.
> In this case we have clear evidence of fraud. Pretty much anything SBF touched with FTX or Alameda money can quite reasonably be presumed to be the proceeds of crime. Why on Earth in this case is the government not seizing, well, everything?
Believe it or not, even if you don’t like the process, there is legal process involved in seizures of assets suspected to be proceeds of a crime (including if they are not going through civil forfeiture, but being held as subject to future criminal forfeiture, which seems more likely in this case). “It appeared in a news article” does not fulfill the procedural requirements on its own.
[0] actually, its more of a mixed bag, IIRC, because the individual districts have their own practice, but its how federal bail often works, and in SDNY particulary.
That’s…just the way federal bail tend to work [0].
> So what makes this a $250 million bond?
Because that’s what SBF and his parents have consented to become jointly and severally liable for, with essentially no available defense (bail forfeiture is essentially an automatic default judgement) if he fails to appear, etc. The “bond” is the agreement to be subject to that liability. Security for the bond is a separate thing, and unlike many state systems, full-value security or the involvement of a licensed bail agent isn’t a norm that applies.
> The government can (and routinely does) seize assets without the owner being convicted of anything. Hell, they do it when the owner never gets even charged with anything. To me, this is a clear 4A violation and should be unconstitutional but the 4A holds no sway over current judicial politics so here we are.
> In this case we have clear evidence of fraud. Pretty much anything SBF touched with FTX or Alameda money can quite reasonably be presumed to be the proceeds of crime. Why on Earth in this case is the government not seizing, well, everything?
Believe it or not, even if you don’t like the process, there is legal process involved in seizures of assets suspected to be proceeds of a crime (including if they are not going through civil forfeiture, but being held as subject to future criminal forfeiture, which seems more likely in this case). “It appeared in a news article” does not fulfill the procedural requirements on its own.
[0] actually, its more of a mixed bag, IIRC, because the individual districts have their own practice, but its how federal bail often works, and in SDNY particulary.
> 1. How is it that a supposed $250 million bond was secured with (according to news articles) significantly less value than that in assets? How does that work? The collateral seems to be his parents' house, a few hundred thousand in cash assets and little else beyond that. Huh? So what makes this a $250 million bond?
I believe it boils down to "making a statement". Even if SBF's friends and family were only able to offer up $2.5m in assets (i.e. 1% of a $250M bond, instead of the more common 10% threshold), it's still (according to the court) a massive disincentive for SBF to flee. But the court still wants to assert that he's accused of crimes that merit such a massive bond.
From Bloomberg:
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/sbf-s-250-million-bail-is-one-of...
> Such bonds also signal the seriousness of the crime being charged, and federal prosecutor Nicholas Roos made that point in court.
> “Mr. Bankman-Fried perpetuated a fraud of epic proportions stealing billions for customers lenders and defrauding investors,” Roos said.
That said, with the revelation in today's Forbes story, I wonder if knowing that Mr. Bankman had $10M worth of gift money from his son was known to the court at the time, or relevant to the bond agreement? i.e. would the court have demanded that money be stashed as collateral along with SBF's home? At the time the bail was announced, SBF was claiming his personal assets were in the $100,000 range
I believe it boils down to "making a statement". Even if SBF's friends and family were only able to offer up $2.5m in assets (i.e. 1% of a $250M bond, instead of the more common 10% threshold), it's still (according to the court) a massive disincentive for SBF to flee. But the court still wants to assert that he's accused of crimes that merit such a massive bond.
From Bloomberg:
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/sbf-s-250-million-bail-is-one-of...
> Such bonds also signal the seriousness of the crime being charged, and federal prosecutor Nicholas Roos made that point in court.
> “Mr. Bankman-Fried perpetuated a fraud of epic proportions stealing billions for customers lenders and defrauding investors,” Roos said.
That said, with the revelation in today's Forbes story, I wonder if knowing that Mr. Bankman had $10M worth of gift money from his son was known to the court at the time, or relevant to the bond agreement? i.e. would the court have demanded that money be stashed as collateral along with SBF's home? At the time the bail was announced, SBF was claiming his personal assets were in the $100,000 range
> Even if SBF’s friends and family were only able to offer up $2.5m in assets (i.e. 1% of a $250M bond, instead of the more common 10% threshold)
The “more common 10% ‘threshold’” isn’t actually a threshold for security pledged to the court, It’s the fee paid to a licensed bail agent (very often, legislated as the fixed or minimum fee for that service in state law) to stand as surety as an alternative to the defendant offering full value security.
But, again, that’s a common feature of state bail systems, not the federal system, which can be much more flexible.
> That said, with the revelation in today’s Forbes story, I wonder if knowing that Mr. Bankman had $10M worth of gift money from his son was known to the court at the time, or relevant to the bond agreement
If it wasn’t (or if the evidence that it was stolen hasn’t already been reviewed and considered by prosecutors), I would expect further action related to bail conditions and possibly freezing/seizure of that money in the near future.
The “more common 10% ‘threshold’” isn’t actually a threshold for security pledged to the court, It’s the fee paid to a licensed bail agent (very often, legislated as the fixed or minimum fee for that service in state law) to stand as surety as an alternative to the defendant offering full value security.
But, again, that’s a common feature of state bail systems, not the federal system, which can be much more flexible.
> That said, with the revelation in today’s Forbes story, I wonder if knowing that Mr. Bankman had $10M worth of gift money from his son was known to the court at the time, or relevant to the bond agreement
If it wasn’t (or if the evidence that it was stolen hasn’t already been reviewed and considered by prosecutors), I would expect further action related to bail conditions and possibly freezing/seizure of that money in the near future.
Just compare [1] how swifty and unilaterally the government can act in seizing assets. In this case, Amazon alleged to the Department of Justice (specifically the US Attorney's office for the Eastern District of Virginia) that Carl Nelson, a former employee, had committed the obscure crime of "honest services fraud" and, based on that, the US attorney seized the assets of Carl Nelson, his family, a bunch of associates and even their lawyers.
By the way, that was 2 years ago. The government ultimately settled and returned most of the money. No one has ever been charged.
So why is SBF getting the kid glove treatment? In other circumstances, based those gifts, SBF's parents' assets would 100% be seized.
I stand by my assertion that SBF secured his release with the proceeds of the crimes he committed.
[1]: https://reason.com/2022/02/18/fbi-seized-almost-1-million-fr...
By the way, that was 2 years ago. The government ultimately settled and returned most of the money. No one has ever been charged.
So why is SBF getting the kid glove treatment? In other circumstances, based those gifts, SBF's parents' assets would 100% be seized.
I stand by my assertion that SBF secured his release with the proceeds of the crimes he committed.
[1]: https://reason.com/2022/02/18/fbi-seized-almost-1-million-fr...
This guy just won't quit. It's a circle firing squad of a mess. Even the cynic in me, who from the beginning of this affair thought he would never go to prison, is starting to gain hope that he actually will..
The FTX bankruptcy trustee will be able to claw it back as an avoidable transaction.
The FTX bankruptcy trustee will charge $18 million in fees to claw back that 10 mil
The FTX bankruptcy trustee is charging $18 million in fees (or however much he's charging) to run a team of people who have been auditing and unfucking FTX's and Alameda's books for the past four months, and will continue to for a long, long while going forward.
He's not paid $18 million to deal with any single problem with the money of a firm that kept no ~books, but had >100 offshore shell companies to conceal the flow of money, and a million people screaming at it that they are owed money. He and his team is paid to deal with the whole thing.
Also, about $10 million of that has been legal fees. [1]
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/08/ftx-bankruptcy-fees-near-20-...
He's not paid $18 million to deal with any single problem with the money of a firm that kept no ~books, but had >100 offshore shell companies to conceal the flow of money, and a million people screaming at it that they are owed money. He and his team is paid to deal with the whole thing.
Also, about $10 million of that has been legal fees. [1]
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/08/ftx-bankruptcy-fees-near-20-...
> The FTX bankruptcy trustee will charge $18 million in fees to claw back that 10 mil
$18 m? I thought they charged $700 m to claw back money in the Madoff case. (I may be off by one order of magnitude though). People in charge of these claw backs are thieves too and they go for easy money, legally, with the benediction of the state, at the expense of people who've been scammed.
$18 m? I thought they charged $700 m to claw back money in the Madoff case. (I may be off by one order of magnitude though). People in charge of these claw backs are thieves too and they go for easy money, legally, with the benediction of the state, at the expense of people who've been scammed.
There is a sick irony in this
And Dad is a Law Professor. Hope he's not teaching the ethics course.
I've known a few people who have taught ethics courses. None of them were ethical by any stretch of the imagination.
Maybe I've just met a bad batch.
Maybe I've just met a bad batch.
There are studies that show ethicists are no more ethical than the general population.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2012.7...
> However, on no issue did ethicists show unequivocally better behavior than the two comparison groups.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09515089.2019.15...
> Our results indicate a successful replication of the original effect that ethicists do not behave any morally better compared to other academics across the vast majority of normative issues.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2012.7...
> However, on no issue did ethicists show unequivocally better behavior than the two comparison groups.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09515089.2019.15...
> Our results indicate a successful replication of the original effect that ethicists do not behave any morally better compared to other academics across the vast majority of normative issues.
Kinda like how marriage therapists have slightly higher divorce rates than the national average?
https://psychcentral.com/pro/do-marriage-family-therapists-h...
https://psychcentral.com/pro/do-marriage-family-therapists-h...
And IT people can't get the printer to work either?
Makes sense to me. I suspect most people are not quick to end a bad marriage, and will hold out hoping things will improve. Marriage therapists might be more likely to act on a bad situation and extricate themselves from it.
Why would anyone expect this in the first place? It'd be like expecting the pastor to be more or less religious, or more moral than his following. Ultimately they are just going to be a single sampling of the population, which means they have a pretty reasonable probability of being average.
Ehn, yes. If I see the pope in a strip club, I'll be damn shocked, but not if I see a random catholic. The difference is that the latter is a random member and the former is the literal face of his church, so he has to abide to certain tenets or at least pretend to.
I would in fact expect pastors to be more religious on average than their congregations[1], though not particularly more moral. And I would expect professional ethicists to be more interested in ethics than the population at large, though again not particularly better.
[1] It would depend a bit on what sort of pastor and what sort of congregation.
[1] It would depend a bit on what sort of pastor and what sort of congregation.
???
You'd expect Pastors or Ethicists to be more moral/ethical because they spend a lot of time thinking about being moral/ethical compared to members of the general population. Seems pretty intuitive to me.
You'd expect Pastors or Ethicists to be more moral/ethical because they spend a lot of time thinking about being moral/ethical compared to members of the general population. Seems pretty intuitive to me.
I'd expect ethicists to have thought more about ethics and morals. I wouldn't necessarily expect them to be more moral or ethical. As C. S. Lewis says in The Abolition of Man, it's not theorems that make the difference when the chips are down.
Pastors... it depends on the pastor. Is it a job, or something they actually believe? Is it just a theory to them, or do they have any actual power helping them live it out?
Pastors... it depends on the pastor. Is it a job, or something they actually believe? Is it just a theory to them, or do they have any actual power helping them live it out?
Ok, so imagine that everyone has the about the same propensity to make the correct ethical decision when faced with a circumstance. You might expect there to be some number of circumstances for which the lay person may be wrong about the appropriate ethical decision and thus fail to make it correctly, whereas the ethicist would be better prepared for such. If this were the case, then you'd expect ethicists to be more ethical despite having the same ethical character as regular people.
In fact, on this interpretation, if we find ethicists are no more ethical, then we must conclude they are actually _less_ ethical than normal people, since they have more occasions where they could make an ethical decision but do not. Or we have to admit that most ethical quandaries are trivial, so that being an ethicists doesn't give you any special advantage.
In fact, on this interpretation, if we find ethicists are no more ethical, then we must conclude they are actually _less_ ethical than normal people, since they have more occasions where they could make an ethical decision but do not. Or we have to admit that most ethical quandaries are trivial, so that being an ethicists doesn't give you any special advantage.
Well yes, I think the usual intuition is that the people who preach something (religiously or not) should be better at what they are preaching than the ones they are preaching to. Right or wrong, I think that's a pretty common presumption to make.
Might be small sample, but that sample is also biased to have a lot of knowledge about what they are preaching (supposedly), meaning they put higher importance about it compared to other things.
Might be small sample, but that sample is also biased to have a lot of knowledge about what they are preaching (supposedly), meaning they put higher importance about it compared to other things.
[deleted]
Well idk about you but if I wanted to learn karate I would find an instructor who is better at karate than the average person to learn from.
How can they claim any could have "unequivocally better behavior"? What is their ground source of truth for morals?
Well, asking the ethicists if the ethicists are acting ethically would not be unbiased.
I wonder if fundamental ethical values are mostly absorbed in childhood or through genetic instinct. At some point it seems most people would just use greater knowledge of law, ethics, etc to either become better at arguing why what they did was right or wrong or use the details to get better at not getting caught. Teaching a grown adult to internalize a new value system would appear quite difficult from my observation.
I have not met many people who wouldn't compromise their ethics for some benefit. This is especially true if they think nobody will find out. So I am not sure there are fundamental ethical values.
Also, the tendency to do so depends on your financial status. Poor people will happily sell thei ethics, those who are more well off don't have to.
You've got to know where the line is to teach people not to cross it!
Yeah for most of us, ethics is more of a “know it when you see it, don’t get to close to the line” sort of thing. Although there definitely are hard ethical question out there, so the study of it is good, they just don’t show up that often in day-to-day life.
"None of them were ethical by any stretch of the imagination."
At least they know the course material well. Isn't that the reason why you're really enrolling in the class for?
At least they know the course material well. Isn't that the reason why you're really enrolling in the class for?
Naturally Voldemort cosplaying as a "defense against the dark arts" instructor was clearly an implication that regulatory capture is way to hide power.
[deleted]
If I was a student in his ethics course it would be a great opportunity to practice grilling a hostile witness
[deleted]
On his staff page he's described as a "leading scholar in the field of tax law". Maybe he was the one that got FTX on QuickBooks after having been paid for 11 months there.
Ethics course is not supposed to make you better person. It teaches you some theories relevant to law practice and regulations layers are under.
...Actually, it's supposed to equip you to see your actions don't occur in the void; and ensure you at least have some introductory calibration to a moral compass.
Is altering a digital artifact for someone else to be used for financial gain on their part ethical?
Transitive property says no; you're an accomplice intheir deception. The only people who tend to assert Ethics courses aren't there to help you be a better person are those that never started out with an intention to be ethical at all. At least in my experience.
Is altering a digital artifact for someone else to be used for financial gain on their part ethical?
Transitive property says no; you're an accomplice intheir deception. The only people who tend to assert Ethics courses aren't there to help you be a better person are those that never started out with an intention to be ethical at all. At least in my experience.
Has anyone ever studied ethics at Stanford? As far as I can tell the subject is not required. CS undergrads must fulfill a "Technology in Society" requirement but it can be satisfied with bullshit like "Technology Entrepreneurship", a series of guest lectures by VCs, which is almost the opposite of studying ethics.
Nothing about a university that would let Condi Rice serve as provost screams "ethics", frankly. Their history is not one that suggests a strong ethical culture.
Nothing about a university that would let Condi Rice serve as provost screams "ethics", frankly. Their history is not one that suggests a strong ethical culture.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Portfolio diversification
bradleyjg(9)
Atleast SBF took the extra step of first funneling money to Alameda and then directing Alameda to send it back to him and then send it to his dad as a tax free gift.
That way he could honestly say he personally has no money left.
That atleast makes it harder for FTX to claw back that money.
One interesting thing a lawyer pointed out to me is that a lawyer has a duty to ensure that the money used to pay them wasn't from the proceeds of a crime.
I wonder how SBF's lawyers have done thier diligence in this case and satisified themselves that this wont' get them into trouble with the state bar.