>> Atleast SBF took the extra step of first funneling money to Alameda and then directing Alameda to send it back to him and then send it to his dad as a tax fr

>> Atleast SBF took the extra step of first funneling money to Alameda and then directing Alameda to send it back to him and then send it to his dad as a tax free gift. I am pretty sure it's the source of the money that matters more (legal vs. illegal) than whether the accounting tricks are legally sound. What you're saying sounds like "at least he wasn't a complete numb-nuts", but that's not much of an "at least" in this scenario. I am pretty sure the courts will be looking for an "at least he wasn't stealing from his customers". At least, that's the sane hope.