5 ms·

What claim does the federal government have to these funds? And how is this seizure even being contemplated before a trial and conviction? Does the Fourth Amen

What claim does the federal government have to these funds? And how is this seizure even being contemplated before a trial and conviction? Does the Fourth Amendment not apply to him just because nobody likes him?

marcinzm 4y ago
I mean you could just read the article: "The Justice Department said Wednesday that has moved to seize millions of shares of Robinhood, the popular stock-trading app, whose ownership is disputed by several parties, including Bankman-Fried himself, his bankrupt crypto exchange FTX and another bankrupt crypto company. Because the competing claims, FTX filed a motion earlier this month to the Delaware bankruptcy court to keep the assets frozen until the court “can resolve the issues in a manner that is fair to all creditors of the debtors.”"
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  The TL; DR being the DoJ moving to seize is the start of due process.
- dehrmann 4y ago
  That's still a little weird because usually personal assets are shielded from issues a company has (at least for LLCs).
  - marcinzm 4y ago
    As the quoted text notes, FTX claims these are it's assets and until that is resolved is asking the courts for them to be frozen.
  - quickthrowman 4y ago
    It’s a bit different when you borrow $500M from your (now bankrupt) company to purchase the ‘personal assets’.
peter422 4y ago
You are right, I mean even though FTX has declared bankruptcy and SBF admitted that either his incompetence or malice is the cause, the government surely couldn't have enough probable cause to seize these clearly unrelated assets.
- warinukraine 4y ago
  > these clearly unrelated assets Troll.
  - marcinzm 4y ago
    I read the comment as sarcasm but we know how well that translates in pure text.
    - warinukraine 4y ago
      Oh ok. I see it now.
runnerup 4y ago
The 4th amendment doesn’t “fully” apply to anyone anymore. Especially if the government views you as potentially guilty (TSA luggage checks, third party doctrine, various things during traffic stops), “potentially” not a U.S. citizen (e.g. at border crossings), or “potentially” not in the USA (e.g. electronic communications).
- marcinzm 4y ago
  >anymore The present and historical states aren't fundamentally any different except in people's rose tinted rear view mirrors.
- soco 4y ago
  Wouldn't it be great if people would just read the facts presented clearly in the referred articles, instead of making catastrophic but unfortunately baseless claims according to their alignment...
- noyoudumbdolt 4y ago
  The Fourth Amendment only prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. And it does not require warrants in all cases. There have always been exceptions to the requirement.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

marcinzm 4y ago

I mean you could just read the article: "The Justice Department said Wednesday that has moved to seize millions of shares of Robinhood, the popular stock-trading app, whose ownership is disputed by several parties, including Bankman-Fried himself, his bankrupt crypto exchange FTX and another bankrupt crypto company. Because the competing claims, FTX filed a motion earlier this month to the Delaware bankruptcy court to keep the assets frozen until the court “can resolve the issues in a manner that is fair to all creditors of the debtors.”"

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
The TL; DR being the DoJ moving to seize is the start of due process.
dehrmann 4y ago
That's still a little weird because usually personal assets are shielded from issues a company has (at least for LLCs).
- marcinzm 4y ago
  As the quoted text notes, FTX claims these are it's assets and until that is resolved is asking the courts for them to be frozen.
- quickthrowman 4y ago
  It’s a bit different when you borrow $500M from your (now bankrupt) company to purchase the ‘personal assets’.

peter422 4y ago

You are right, I mean even though FTX has declared bankruptcy and SBF admitted that either his incompetence or malice is the cause, the government surely couldn't have enough probable cause to seize these clearly unrelated assets.

warinukraine 4y ago
> these clearly unrelated assets Troll.
- marcinzm 4y ago
  I read the comment as sarcasm but we know how well that translates in pure text.
  - warinukraine 4y ago
    Oh ok. I see it now.

runnerup 4y ago

The 4th amendment doesn’t “fully” apply to anyone anymore. Especially if the government views you as potentially guilty (TSA luggage checks, third party doctrine, various things during traffic stops), “potentially” not a U.S. citizen (e.g. at border crossings), or “potentially” not in the USA (e.g. electronic communications).

marcinzm 4y ago
>anymore The present and historical states aren't fundamentally any different except in people's rose tinted rear view mirrors.
soco 4y ago
Wouldn't it be great if people would just read the facts presented clearly in the referred articles, instead of making catastrophic but unfortunately baseless claims according to their alignment...
noyoudumbdolt 4y ago
The Fourth Amendment only prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. And it does not require warrants in all cases. There have always been exceptions to the requirement.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]