4 ms·
I fully understand the purported chain of events. But, again: the US does not have jurisdiction over FTX. So why would he "get arrested" in California for embez
by dvt 4y ago
I fully understand the purported chain of events. But, again: the US does not have jurisdiction over FTX. So why would he "get arrested" in California for embezzlement? He didn't break any US laws. The FTX/Alameda deal was likely done via SAFT[1], which is both legal and popular.
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/simple-agreement-future-tokens-saft.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/simple-agreement-future...
- cmeacham98 4y agoDoes FTX international have any US investors? This would be a theft of their funds too, right?
- nemothekid 4y agoIt does, but those investors were breaking FTX ToS by using the site (you had to use a VPN to access it). I'm not sure if the SEC has standing for American investors that pretended to not be American.
- cmeacham98 4y agoSorry, I mean investors in the company itself, not crypto traders.
- dvt 4y agoSequoia marked their $150M investment into FTX down to $0 in a letter to LPs[1]. [1] https://twitter.com/sequoia/status/1590522718650499073/photo/1 https://twitter.com/sequoia/status/1590522718650499073/photo...
- Animats 4y agoThe US has jurisdiction over Mr. Bankman-Fried, who is an American citizen born in California. The US has jurisdiction over Alameda Research, which is a US company operating in California and appears to have been the beneficiary of the scam. That's plenty of jurisdiction.