4 ms·
does this guy not have a lawyer?
by no-dr-onboard 4y ago
does this guy not have a lawyer?
- legolas2412 4y agoHis parents are stanford law professors. They also received a 16 million dollar home from FTX.
- no-dr-onboard 4y agoOk thanks, but the question still stands.
- sugarpile 4y agoMultiple lawyers have dropped him.
- dmix 4y ago> They also received a 16 million dollar home from FTX. The banks will shortly have a 16M home*
- nathanvanfleet 4y agoSBF has said that his lawyers have told him to not talk or admit anything.
- nemo44x 4y agoA lawyer would be a negative towards the defense he’s already playing which is the “idiot defense”. [1] If he acquired representation it would make him appear to: 1) be aware that he did something wrong 2) make his idiotic statements unreliable going forward as a lawyer would filter his statements 3) give the prosecution enough to work with to break his idiot defense. This is all part of his plan to evade accountability and prison time. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot_defense https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot_defense
- stickfigure 4y agoThis is probably the right answer. It also helps if he is, to some extent, an Idiot. It's even possible that he genuinely feels bad.
- nemo44x 4y agoIt’s fairly immaterial to the fact he defrauded American investors and he should be prosecuted.
- dieselgate 4y agoCommenting because genuinely curious - i thought FTX international was the org where people were defrauded but FTX.us was a “separate entity” where customers could be made whole tomorrow.
- notch656a 4y agoIt seems convenient that the customers in US jurisdiction magically are precisely the customers who weren't (supposedly) defrauded.
- imtringued 4y agoIn my opinion it sounds like it is too difficult to start a proper exchange. After all if countries and their financial regulatory were cooperative only a fraction of funds would have been lost because the Bahamas company would be just a holding company.
- cma 4y agoAnd his parents can be defacto acting as his lawyers anyway.
- selimthegrim 4y agoWhen’s the last time they argued a case in court?
- yieldcrv 4y agoya know, if the FTX group really had no internal controls or documentation that binds the directors to specific behaviors, then an embezzlement charge could really be ruled out, same with other forms of theft, or securities fraud even. in this case, even the assets being traded precluded them from needing compliance officers which is one of those areas where "need regulation" would fit well. It's really more like a phishing attack to get people to voluntarily wire money to the Alameda bank account presented on the website's interface, and they did.
- tanseydavid 4y agoCrypto-exchanges are held to pretty high KYC/AML when dealing with the clients. Why on earth would such an exchange be precluded from having Compliance Officers? That does not pass even a basic sniff test. It does not make any sense.
- smaudet 4y agoWho holds the exchanges to those KYC/AML standards, though? I don't think they get regular audits like normal banks...correct me if you know different.
- yieldcrv 4y agonot high KYC/AML requirements, just odd interpretations of what they need to do, but this is also unrelated to what requirements are levied after accepting the money
- wmf 4y agoCrypto-exchanges are held to pretty high KYC/AML when dealing with the clients. Under Bahamian law?
- BlueTemplar 4y agoUnder US banking laws, since, unlike for ICOs, US regulators allowed FTX to both do business with US customers, and also to lend money ? (Also to buy a small US bank.)