Opinion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590939/gov.uscourts.nysd.590939.167.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscou

Opinion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590939/gov.uscourts.nysd.590939.167.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.59... Most of it is a dry discussion of why SBF’s motions to dismiss each count are meritless, but I found this bit interesting: > Second, the defendant argues that “the alleged conduct relevant to Counts Three and Four was predominantly foreign” and that the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) cannot be applied to such extraterritorial conduct. > [...] > The indictment alleges that the defendant made false and misleading statements both in the United States and directed at U.S. customers. > [...] > Furthermore, the defendant allegedly made false and misleading statements on Twitter, a U.S.-based social media platform, including that FTX customer assets were “fine,” that FTX had “enough to cover all client holdings,” and that FTX did not “invest client assets (even in treasuries).” Pretty interesting that the ownership of a website would establish US criminal jurisdiction over comments made there. To be fair, the other reasons for denying this notion are that he also made fraudulent statements in Congressional testimony and Super Bowl ads (!) so the twitter part isn’t remotely necessary.