3 ms·
Sorry to be contrary but... Is that actually true in this case? It seems to me that the fraud was very very simple no? The CEO "lent" money from this business (
by LatteLazy 4y ago
Sorry to be contrary but... Is that actually true in this case? It seems to me that the fraud was very very simple no? The CEO "lent" money from this business (which was really client money) to another business he controlled. That's not exactly complex or novel. I don't even think there was deception within the company was there, he just told people to do it and they did. It isn't like he played a careful, decade long shell game like Enron. This was the digital equivalent of someone putting their hand in the till...
- lazide 4y agoSimple that way? Yes, probably. Tracing the actual on the ground transactions and seeing where each dollar went, and figuring out the mechanisms used to actually lift said dollars? That’s what this discussion is about, and it’s not as clearly understood right now.
- wbc 4y agosure it is! it all went to fiat@, it's marked clearly in the excel spreadsheet and everything
- lazide 4y agoSure, but $20’s? $100’s? Strippers and blow? We need the answers for the documentaries!
- LatteLazy 4y agoApparently (per The Break Down podcast) SBF had a back door to the PMS that let him transfer assets without any compliance or accounting blocks or alerts. So he just did it. That's how simple this was. He didn't hide the transfers to Alameda. He just did it... I still find structures like this dumb, though thet are sometimes required by stupid governments.