3 ms·

I clearly stated I don't support the legal basis for civil asset forfeiture, particularly as its used in the US, specifically without filing charges or that the

by jmyeet 4y ago

I clearly stated I don't support the legal basis for civil asset forfeiture, particularly as its used in the US, specifically without filing charges or that the asset is the defendant so the government can launch a civil action against an asset for being suspected of being the result of a criminal action by its alleged owner. It's even worse that law enforcement gets to keep the proceeds of seizing assets where there are no charges (let alone convictions) so we've added a profit motive for what should be unlawful search and seizure. Yay capitalism. But that is the legal doctrine we operated under. Unlike the Amazon case, there is a mountain of evidence against SBF, the new CEO has no doubt coopearted and provided ample docuemntation, there are 2 cooperating witnesses and charges have been filed. Through ownership of Bahamanian property (and who knows what else) there is a clearly evidence trail between FTX customer assets to SBF and SBF's parents and associates. It is all quite plausibly the proceeds of crime. Basically, SBF walked into a bank, robbed it and then used the money he stole to post his bond.

hackinthebochs 4y ago
SBF's case is not analogous to a bank robber paying his bail out of the duffle bag used in the robbery. It is plausible that SBF had assets prior to misusing customer funds. The presumption of innocence should not just be a nice story we tell ourselves.
- jmyeet 4y ago
  That might be the logical position but it isn't the legal position when it comes to criminal proceeds in fraud and other cases. Imagine you saved $100,000 from working and spending less than you earned, all completely legitimiately and legally. Now imagine that you make another $100,000 from, say, importing and selling a few pounds of cocaine. You might think the government may come along and seize $100,000 from you. No, they'll seize everything. It's really difficult to separate money and the government won't even try. All of that could be forfeit. Let me give you another example: imagine you're in charge of purchasing for a company. You send out and pay invoices on that company's behalf. Imagine you skim off the top and add $1,000 in charges or increased prices or fake items to a $20,000 invoice. You send out a $21,000 invoice, keep $1,000 and then pay the company $20,000. This is fraud. Imagine you get caught. You won't be on the hook for $1,000. You may be on the hook for the full $21,000. The entire invoice is fraud at that point. Now this may seem unfair or unreasonable. I won't argue that. I'll simply say, that's not how it works. So once SBF committed fraud, which seems to be the case, he basically has the reverse Midas touch. Everything he touches from that point becomes tainted and the government and the courts are within their rights to seize it. If his parents accepted any proceeds of that fraud, even unknowingly, the government can start seizing their assets too. In the Nelson case I talked about originally, the government seized the bank accounts from Nelson's lawyers. Think about that. As others have commented correctly and more pithily than I have: the issue isn't is civil asset forfeiture justified (it isn't) but why those same rules are being applied inconsistently, much to SBF's benefit as he's walking free today.

by jmyeet 4y ago

hackinthebochs 4y ago

SBF's case is not analogous to a bank robber paying his bail out of the duffle bag used in the robbery. It is plausible that SBF had assets prior to misusing customer funds. The presumption of innocence should not just be a nice story we tell ourselves.

jmyeet 4y ago
That might be the logical position but it isn't the legal position when it comes to criminal proceeds in fraud and other cases. Imagine you saved $100,000 from working and spending less than you earned, all completely legitimiately and legally. Now imagine that you make another $100,000 from, say, importing and selling a few pounds of cocaine. You might think the government may come along and seize $100,000 from you. No, they'll seize everything. It's really difficult to separate money and the government won't even try. All of that could be forfeit. Let me give you another example: imagine you're in charge of purchasing for a company. You send out and pay invoices on that company's behalf. Imagine you skim off the top and add $1,000 in charges or increased prices or fake items to a $20,000 invoice. You send out a $21,000 invoice, keep $1,000 and then pay the company $20,000. This is fraud. Imagine you get caught. You won't be on the hook for $1,000. You may be on the hook for the full $21,000. The entire invoice is fraud at that point. Now this may seem unfair or unreasonable. I won't argue that. I'll simply say, that's not how it works. So once SBF committed fraud, which seems to be the case, he basically has the reverse Midas touch. Everything he touches from that point becomes tainted and the government and the courts are within their rights to seize it. If his parents accepted any proceeds of that fraud, even unknowingly, the government can start seizing their assets too. In the Nelson case I talked about originally, the government seized the bank accounts from Nelson's lawyers. Think about that. As others have commented correctly and more pithily than I have: the issue isn't is civil asset forfeiture justified (it isn't) but why those same rules are being applied inconsistently, much to SBF's benefit as he's walking free today.