Just compare [1] how swifty and unilaterally the government can act in seizing assets. In this case, Amazon alleged to the Department of Justice (specifically t

Just compare [1] how swifty and unilaterally the government can act in seizing assets. In this case, Amazon alleged to the Department of Justice (specifically the US Attorney's office for the Eastern District of Virginia) that Carl Nelson, a former employee, had committed the obscure crime of "honest services fraud" and, based on that, the US attorney seized the assets of Carl Nelson, his family, a bunch of associates and even their lawyers. By the way, that was 2 years ago. The government ultimately settled and returned most of the money. No one has ever been charged. So why is SBF getting the kid glove treatment? In other circumstances, based those gifts, SBF's parents' assets would 100% be seized. I stand by my assertion that SBF secured his release with the proceeds of the crimes he committed. [1]: https://reason.com/2022/02/18/fbi-seized-almost-1-million-from-amy-sterner-carl-nelson-never-charged-them-with-a-crime/ https://reason.com/2022/02/18/fbi-seized-almost-1-million-fr...