5 ms·

1. Someone took a picture of her in a coffee shop down the street from the Manhattan FBI/US attorney office a few weeks ago (last week?). She is supposed to be

1. Someone took a picture of her in a coffee shop down the street from the Manhattan FBI/US attorney office a few weeks ago (last week?). She is supposed to be in Hong Kong as that is where she was based. 2. BBG news article recently speculated some hot-shot lawyers have begun representing Caroline.

dmix 4y ago
She was spotted in NYC with another Alameda employee too. Maybe the Alameda execs are trying to say they just made irresponsible gambles (like a shitty Wall St investor) but SBF is the one who secretly covered the massive losses with FTX customer assets without telling the public and was responsible for the "dual accounting" issue where deposits were counted twice. Among all the other things that they did wrong. Or maybe there was a more direct/overt conspiracy at play they both took part in and she snitched first. The good news is we'll probably find out sooner than expected if the extradition gets challenged in court. We'll see exactly how altruistic SBF really is soon.
- DonHopkins 4y ago
  "Unctuous Altruism"
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  What you've described is also consistent with her asking the DOJ for a deal and then being laughed out of the room.
  - mbreese 4y ago
    But DOJ would have needed someone who had the receipts (who could also explain it all) to be able to act this quickly. So, in this case, I think it's a reasonable theory (but not the only viable one). Maybe part of the urgency was also the planned congressional testimony.
    - iudqnolq 4y ago
      > But DOJ would have needed someone who had the receipts (who could also explain it all) to be able to act this quickly. Citation needed? I'm not a lawyer, but it seems plausible to me that SBF's public admissions of crimes, plus the full records of his company, are sufficient.
      - mbreese 4y ago
        Where would they have gotten the full records? Or been able to know where to look in the records? Forensic accounting takes time (even if the records are as bad as alleged). To me, this suggests someone on the inside helping to build a case. Federal cases can take years to build because they are usually very thorough. Going from collapse of the company to extradition request in the course of weeks seems really fast to me from a historical perspective (but IANAL either). But this, like most of the thread, is all speculation. We’ll find out more in due course.
        vgatherps 4y ago
        It appears that many FTX/Alameda employees were in the dark as well and had huge losses. There's probably no shortage of angry employees interested in sending him to jail (and probably ensuring SBF gets blamed and not them). Add SBF bloviating endlessly on the internet and admitting crimes and you have an easy case?
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        iudqnolq 4y ago
        > Where would they have gotten the full records? Or been able to know where to look in the records? Bankruptcy procedings. Subpoenas. The standard ways the FBI gets records from regular companies run by people who aren't criminals and don't want to become one (the current CEO is a regular business person).
        mbreese 4y ago
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  > Maybe the Alameda execs are trying to say they just made irresponsible gambles (like a shitty Wall St investor) but SBF is the one who secretly covered the massive losses with FTX customer assets without telling the public and was responsible for the "dual accounting" issue where deposits were counted twice. Among all the other things that they did wrong. Here’s the crazy thing. Maybe they pierce the veil and say the two companies acted as one, but hedge funds fail all the time. The fraud was SBF using FTX to prop up Alameda…
  - dmix 4y ago
    Yes that was basically the point CoffeeZilla made during his notorious SBF interview https://youtu.be/4o_jPzBZSIo https://youtu.be/4o_jPzBZSIo
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Maybe they pierce the veil and say the two companies acted as one, but hedge funds fail all the time. “Piercing the veil” is a term of art for holding shareholders accountable for corporate liabilities notwithstanding the civil liability shield usually provided by the corporate form. Holding coconspirators accountable for their role in a criminal conspiracy doesn’t have a special name because it is routine rather than exceptional.
    - RC_ITR 4y ago
      Sigh. Why is HN always like this? (don’t answer, I know) Piercing the veil broadly refers to removing limited liability protections because the individuals behaved in such a way (criminally) that they have forfeited their protections. The most common people held to limited liability protections are shareholders in limited liability corporations (LLCs) A different sort of limited liability is the idea that customers/partners of a fraudulent business are not liable for that fraud, unless they committed gross negligence in allowing the fraud to continue. To your point, there is not a snappy term for that specific phenomenon, because it is so rare, but piercing the veil 100% applies here because it refers to the “veil of limited liability”.
      - 4y ago
- carlmr 4y ago
  >responsible for the "dual accounting" issue where deposits were counted twice. You're supposed to count everything twice in corresponding accounts. That's double-entry accounting.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    While it's possible someone just misunderstood colossally in the reporting (happens all the time), one of the allegations is that he had two different sets of documents to hide stuff and get things past auditors, not just double every as is standard.
    - carlmr 4y ago
      I know it was just a jab because dual/double entry accounting is the standard, so in a sense he did quadruple accounting.
- rightbyte 4y ago
  > "dual accounting" issue The badly labeled @fiat account ... ? I am still in awe over that 11yo's soda stand spreadsheet.

dmix 4y ago

She was spotted in NYC with another Alameda employee too. Maybe the Alameda execs are trying to say they just made irresponsible gambles (like a shitty Wall St investor) but SBF is the one who secretly covered the massive losses with FTX customer assets without telling the public and was responsible for the "dual accounting" issue where deposits were counted twice. Among all the other things that they did wrong. Or maybe there was a more direct/overt conspiracy at play they both took part in and she snitched first. The good news is we'll probably find out sooner than expected if the extradition gets challenged in court. We'll see exactly how altruistic SBF really is soon.

DonHopkins 4y ago
"Unctuous Altruism"
iudqnolq 4y ago
What you've described is also consistent with her asking the DOJ for a deal and then being laughed out of the room.
- mbreese 4y ago
  But DOJ would have needed someone who had the receipts (who could also explain it all) to be able to act this quickly. So, in this case, I think it's a reasonable theory (but not the only viable one). Maybe part of the urgency was also the planned congressional testimony.
  - iudqnolq 4y ago
    > But DOJ would have needed someone who had the receipts (who could also explain it all) to be able to act this quickly. Citation needed? I'm not a lawyer, but it seems plausible to me that SBF's public admissions of crimes, plus the full records of his company, are sufficient.
    - mbreese 4y ago
      Where would they have gotten the full records? Or been able to know where to look in the records? Forensic accounting takes time (even if the records are as bad as alleged). To me, this suggests someone on the inside helping to build a case. Federal cases can take years to build because they are usually very thorough. Going from collapse of the company to extradition request in the course of weeks seems really fast to me from a historical perspective (but IANAL either). But this, like most of the thread, is all speculation. We’ll find out more in due course.
      - vgatherps 4y ago
        It appears that many FTX/Alameda employees were in the dark as well and had huge losses. There's probably no shortage of angry employees interested in sending him to jail (and probably ensuring SBF gets blamed and not them). Add SBF bloviating endlessly on the internet and admitting crimes and you have an easy case?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - iudqnolq 4y ago
        > Where would they have gotten the full records? Or been able to know where to look in the records? Bankruptcy procedings. Subpoenas. The standard ways the FBI gets records from regular companies run by people who aren't criminals and don't want to become one (the current CEO is a regular business person).
        mbreese 4y ago
RC_ITR 4y ago
> Maybe the Alameda execs are trying to say they just made irresponsible gambles (like a shitty Wall St investor) but SBF is the one who secretly covered the massive losses with FTX customer assets without telling the public and was responsible for the "dual accounting" issue where deposits were counted twice. Among all the other things that they did wrong. Here’s the crazy thing. Maybe they pierce the veil and say the two companies acted as one, but hedge funds fail all the time. The fraud was SBF using FTX to prop up Alameda…
- dmix 4y ago
  Yes that was basically the point CoffeeZilla made during his notorious SBF interview https://youtu.be/4o_jPzBZSIo https://youtu.be/4o_jPzBZSIo
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Maybe they pierce the veil and say the two companies acted as one, but hedge funds fail all the time. “Piercing the veil” is a term of art for holding shareholders accountable for corporate liabilities notwithstanding the civil liability shield usually provided by the corporate form. Holding coconspirators accountable for their role in a criminal conspiracy doesn’t have a special name because it is routine rather than exceptional.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    Sigh. Why is HN always like this? (don’t answer, I know) Piercing the veil broadly refers to removing limited liability protections because the individuals behaved in such a way (criminally) that they have forfeited their protections. The most common people held to limited liability protections are shareholders in limited liability corporations (LLCs) A different sort of limited liability is the idea that customers/partners of a fraudulent business are not liable for that fraud, unless they committed gross negligence in allowing the fraud to continue. To your point, there is not a snappy term for that specific phenomenon, because it is so rare, but piercing the veil 100% applies here because it refers to the “veil of limited liability”.
    - 4y ago
carlmr 4y ago
>responsible for the "dual accounting" issue where deposits were counted twice. You're supposed to count everything twice in corresponding accounts. That's double-entry accounting.
- ben_w 4y ago
  While it's possible someone just misunderstood colossally in the reporting (happens all the time), one of the allegations is that he had two different sets of documents to hide stuff and get things past auditors, not just double every as is standard.
  - carlmr 4y ago
    I know it was just a jab because dual/double entry accounting is the standard, so in a sense he did quadruple accounting.
rightbyte 4y ago
> "dual accounting" issue The badly labeled @fiat account ... ? I am still in awe over that 11yo's soda stand spreadsheet.