4 ms·

When someone pays you with stolen funds, aren't you (morally, if not legally) obliged to pay it back to the victims?

by mouse_ 4y ago

troad 4y ago
If it was a bona fide investment and you are without notice of any wrongdoing - no, I’d say you’re not. Presumably your nefarious investor holds some kind of ownership interest that can be sold by their trustees/liquidators to raise funds. If you are able to do so, it seems like a nice thing to try to help source money to help the people caught out, including by assisting in realising any ownership stake, but that’s a choice, not an obligation. Edit: to avoid ambiguity, this response is written re morality, not legality.
- mshake2 4y ago
  I think the answer should be yes so that those taking investment should feel pressure to ensure that the money from investors is legitimate. Otherwise, it's going to be "whoops, we didn't know ;)" every time.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    There seems to be a false dichotomy here between either “always treat the recipient as guilty” and “just let them claim ignorance without questioning it”.
    - mshake2 4y ago
      I don't think you should treat them as guilty if they took funds that were stolen, unless you knew for sure that they knew. Just that they should always have to give it back.
- jibe 4y ago
  I’d say you’re not If the investment was made with stolen funds they can be clawed back.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - kurthr 4y ago
    I guess the local grocery store better look out. If he paid any taxes, can those be clawed back from the IRS too?
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  NB/OT: Late response on an earlier thread: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34182022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34182022>
bsaul 4y ago
good question, but îd say doing so means the end of whole industries (luxury comes to mind)
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> aren't you (morally, if not legally) obliged to pay it back to the victims? OpenAI would be positively thrilled to give SBF back his money and cancel his shares. I’m not sure his creditors would similarly salivate at that deal. (EDIT: Nvm.)
- axiom92 4y ago
  The parent is talking about Anthropic (https://www.anthropic.com/ https://www.anthropic.com/), not OpenAI.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> When someone pays you with stolen funds, aren’t you (morally, if not legally) obliged to pay it back to the victims? Legally, its complicated, and the reason for that is because it is viewed as both morally complicated (as well simplistic approaches being viewed as creating undesired social incentives.)
- hahaxdxd123 4y ago
  Can you delve into the complexities? To me, if clawback were not available, it seems to create the perverse incentive to start a ponzi scheme and then put the money in a shielded "investment" in my friends' overvalued startup.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Can you delve into the complexities? Not at tolerable length for HN and do the subject justice. In very brief summary, the problem of how to balance the resolution of the interests of the two victims in this type of case, is a rather old one that has been recognized in the common law for quite a long time, leading to nuanced handling of different circumstances, which have themselves evolved over time, taking into account factors like the kind of property (real property having one general set of rules, personal property having another set of rules, but money and negotiable instrumenets having at times a different set of rules than personal property generally, etc.), the relations between the three parties, etc. There’s been a lot of ink over the years written on the issue, though, “bona fide purchaser for value”,”innocent purchaser for value, “good-faith purchaser” are all terms for the issue. (Often, though, it will be written of in the context of a particular domain, e.g., real property transactions, commercial transactions under the UCC as compared to some particular preexisting law, etc., but it is all the same broad issue.)
KeriWarr 4y ago
As I understand it, funds were raised in ~April, and the sketchy FTX stuff happened between May and July. IMO this affects the moral calculus.
troydavis 4y ago
Based on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31209431#31210335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31209431#31210335, it's probably already been spent on compute to train this model. As the CEO commented in that thread, "It is in fact our intent to primarily spend the funds on compute."

When someone pays you with stolen funds, aren't you (morally, if not legally) obliged to pay it back to the victims?

by mouse_ 4y ago

When someone pays you with stolen funds, aren't you (morally, if not legally) obliged to pay it back to the victims?

If it was a bona fide investment and you are without notice of any wrongdoing - no, I’d say you’re not. Presumably your nefarious investor holds some kind of ownership interest that can be sold by their trustees/liquidators to raise funds. If you are able to do so, it seems like a nice thing to try to help source money to help the people caught out, including by assisting in realising any ownership stake, but that’s a choice, not an obligation. Edit: to avoid ambiguity, this response is written re morality, not legality.

mshake2 4y ago
I think the answer should be yes so that those taking investment should feel pressure to ensure that the money from investors is legitimate. Otherwise, it's going to be "whoops, we didn't know ;)" every time.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  There seems to be a false dichotomy here between either “always treat the recipient as guilty” and “just let them claim ignorance without questioning it”.
  - mshake2 4y ago
    I don't think you should treat them as guilty if they took funds that were stolen, unless you knew for sure that they knew. Just that they should always have to give it back.
jibe 4y ago
I’d say you’re not If the investment was made with stolen funds they can be clawed back.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kurthr 4y ago
  I guess the local grocery store better look out. If he paid any taxes, can those be clawed back from the IRS too?
dredmorbius 4y ago
NB/OT: Late response on an earlier thread: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34182022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34182022>

bsaul 4y ago

good question, but îd say doing so means the end of whole industries (luxury comes to mind)

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> aren't you (morally, if not legally) obliged to pay it back to the victims? OpenAI would be positively thrilled to give SBF back his money and cancel his shares. I’m not sure his creditors would similarly salivate at that deal. (EDIT: Nvm.)

axiom92 4y ago
The parent is talking about Anthropic (https://www.anthropic.com/ https://www.anthropic.com/), not OpenAI.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> When someone pays you with stolen funds, aren’t you (morally, if not legally) obliged to pay it back to the victims? Legally, its complicated, and the reason for that is because it is viewed as both morally complicated (as well simplistic approaches being viewed as creating undesired social incentives.)

hahaxdxd123 4y ago
Can you delve into the complexities? To me, if clawback were not available, it seems to create the perverse incentive to start a ponzi scheme and then put the money in a shielded "investment" in my friends' overvalued startup.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Can you delve into the complexities? Not at tolerable length for HN and do the subject justice. In very brief summary, the problem of how to balance the resolution of the interests of the two victims in this type of case, is a rather old one that has been recognized in the common law for quite a long time, leading to nuanced handling of different circumstances, which have themselves evolved over time, taking into account factors like the kind of property (real property having one general set of rules, personal property having another set of rules, but money and negotiable instrumenets having at times a different set of rules than personal property generally, etc.), the relations between the three parties, etc. There’s been a lot of ink over the years written on the issue, though, “bona fide purchaser for value”,”innocent purchaser for value, “good-faith purchaser” are all terms for the issue. (Often, though, it will be written of in the context of a particular domain, e.g., real property transactions, commercial transactions under the UCC as compared to some particular preexisting law, etc., but it is all the same broad issue.)

KeriWarr 4y ago

As I understand it, funds were raised in ~April, and the sketchy FTX stuff happened between May and July. IMO this affects the moral calculus.

troydavis 4y ago

Based on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31209431#31210335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31209431#31210335, it's probably already been spent on compute to train this model. As the CEO commented in that thread, "It is in fact our intent to primarily spend the funds on compute."