3 ms·

https://www.tookitaki.com/compliance_hub/shell-companies-money-laundering/ https://www.tookitaki.com/compliance_hub/shell-companies-mon...

gruez 4y ago
It feels like certain terms (eg. "ponzi scheme", "money laundering", "shell companies") get thrown around any time there's any sort of financial malfeasance, without regard to their specific meaning. For the money laundering claim, do we have any reason to believe that SBF is trying to launder money (ie. trying to conceal the origin of money, obtained from illicit activities such as drug trafficking, corruption, embezzlement or gambling, by converting it into a legitimate source[1])? Is he secretly also a darknet drug dealer or something? I guess you could argue the embezzle angle, but the guy isn't exactly known for a lavish lifestyle. He does use company funds to fund his charities/PACs and buy expensive properties (I think there was a group penthouse in Bermuda that's for sale now), but that's all in the open. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering
- grey-area 4y ago
  Alameda
  - gruez 4y ago
    You mean the company that is very obviously and directly connected to them?
    - grey-area 4y ago
      Yes it’s a glaring example of fraud and dodgy deals/assets, since you seem unable to accept that the obvious fraudsters are in in fact up to no good. Shell companies are most often used for fraud or tax evasion, there really are no good reasons to have such a complex web of companies.
      - gruez 4y ago
        > Yes it’s a glaring example of fraud and dodgy deals/assets, since you seem unable to accept that the obvious fraudsters are in in fact up to no good. Did I claim that they weren't engaging in fraud, or that the deal wasn't dodgy? My objection was with "money laundering". Even with the loosest possible interpretation, there needs to be some sort of obfuscation involved. The facts seem to point towards something very straightforward (ie. Alemeda Research borrowing money from FTX), which suggests that no obfuscation was attempted. All of this confirms my prior comment: >It feels like certain terms (eg. "ponzi scheme", "money laundering", "shell companies") get thrown around any time there's any sort of financial malfeasance, without regard to their specific meaning. Was there malfeasance at Alameda Research/FTX? Hell yes. Was there money laundering? No.
        grey-area 4y ago
        If you read the article is not just about money laundering, shell companies and complex corporate structures are fraud adjacent, something you seemed surprised by, that is why I gave you the link. > Alemeda Research borrowing money from FTX A company can't 'borrow' customer funds from another company. Companies also shouldn't try to price the assets they hold as security or swap securities on customers. There are so many examples of fraud here.

gruez 4y ago

It feels like certain terms (eg. "ponzi scheme", "money laundering", "shell companies") get thrown around any time there's any sort of financial malfeasance, without regard to their specific meaning. For the money laundering claim, do we have any reason to believe that SBF is trying to launder money (ie. trying to conceal the origin of money, obtained from illicit activities such as drug trafficking, corruption, embezzlement or gambling, by converting it into a legitimate source[1])? Is he secretly also a darknet drug dealer or something? I guess you could argue the embezzle angle, but the guy isn't exactly known for a lavish lifestyle. He does use company funds to fund his charities/PACs and buy expensive properties (I think there was a group penthouse in Bermuda that's for sale now), but that's all in the open. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering

grey-area 4y ago
Alameda
- gruez 4y ago
  You mean the company that is very obviously and directly connected to them?
  - grey-area 4y ago
    Yes it’s a glaring example of fraud and dodgy deals/assets, since you seem unable to accept that the obvious fraudsters are in in fact up to no good. Shell companies are most often used for fraud or tax evasion, there really are no good reasons to have such a complex web of companies.
    - gruez 4y ago
      > Yes it’s a glaring example of fraud and dodgy deals/assets, since you seem unable to accept that the obvious fraudsters are in in fact up to no good. Did I claim that they weren't engaging in fraud, or that the deal wasn't dodgy? My objection was with "money laundering". Even with the loosest possible interpretation, there needs to be some sort of obfuscation involved. The facts seem to point towards something very straightforward (ie. Alemeda Research borrowing money from FTX), which suggests that no obfuscation was attempted. All of this confirms my prior comment: >It feels like certain terms (eg. "ponzi scheme", "money laundering", "shell companies") get thrown around any time there's any sort of financial malfeasance, without regard to their specific meaning. Was there malfeasance at Alameda Research/FTX? Hell yes. Was there money laundering? No.
      - grey-area 4y ago
        If you read the article is not just about money laundering, shell companies and complex corporate structures are fraud adjacent, something you seemed surprised by, that is why I gave you the link. > Alemeda Research borrowing money from FTX A company can't 'borrow' customer funds from another company. Companies also shouldn't try to price the assets they hold as security or swap securities on customers. There are so many examples of fraud here.