21 ms·

Does the US gov make a profit on the deal? Does some or all of the proceeds go to pay back victims?

belltaco 3y ago
The govt didn't buy the shares, they seized them. So it's all technically profit but they probably want to reimburse the scammed folks.
- benjaminwootton 3y ago
  As of today, SBF hasn’t been found guilty in any court of law. Are the government typically allowed to seize and sell your assets and possibly redistribute the proceeds before you’ve even been to court? What if he needed those funds for his legal defence?
  - edmundsauto 3y ago
    > Are the government typically allowed to seize and sell your assets and possibly redistribute the proceeds before you’ve even been to court? Yes, asset seizure is the norm for law enforcement in America. > What if he needed those funds for his legal defence? The money is in a limbo state, as it might be proceeds from crimes. The justice system doesn't want you using proceeds from crimes in any way, shape or form.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > asset seizure is the norm for law enforcement in America Freeze and seizure, sure. Pre-trial disposal, no. In this case, the headline is being loose in that these aren't Bankman-Fried the natural person's shares, they're a bankrupt entity's. Selling a bankrupt entity's stuff is par for the course.
      - edmundsauto 3y ago
        Is that true when the entity itself is fraudulent? At what point can we separate SBF & Co's fraud from the company itself?
  - freejazz 3y ago
    This has nothing to do with his criminal trial, this has to do with his company filing for bankruptcy. If he didn't want the gov't to auction of his companies assets in order to satisfy his creditors... then he shouldn't have declared bankruptcy, as that's exactly what happens in a bankruptcy proceeding.
    - infecto 3y ago
      Is this part of bankruptcy or the criminal trial? It was the US marshals that sold it that sounds more like criminal asset forfeiture. I did not dig too deep but not immediately clear.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - fatfingerd 3y ago
    AFAICT he pledged them to BlockFi to try to stop a margin call, and they went bankrupt, so its just a question of which bankruptcy claims they are for.
  - isitmadeofglass 3y ago
    [dead]
- eastbound 3y ago
  What do you mean “reimburse the scammed folks”? Any holder of bitcoins would receive a share of their money back? Whatever the FBI is up to, it’s most certainly not reimbursing the customers.
  - _blz2 3y ago
    Not the customers, but FTX lenders investors. There are likely tons of lawsuits filed by them to claim their piece of the govt seized assets. Its up to the govt to decide whether to help customers or investors and lenders.

The govt didn't buy the shares, they seized them. So it's all technically profit but they probably want to reimburse the scammed folks.

benjaminwootton 3y ago
As of today, SBF hasn’t been found guilty in any court of law. Are the government typically allowed to seize and sell your assets and possibly redistribute the proceeds before you’ve even been to court? What if he needed those funds for his legal defence?
- edmundsauto 3y ago
  > Are the government typically allowed to seize and sell your assets and possibly redistribute the proceeds before you’ve even been to court? Yes, asset seizure is the norm for law enforcement in America. > What if he needed those funds for his legal defence? The money is in a limbo state, as it might be proceeds from crimes. The justice system doesn't want you using proceeds from crimes in any way, shape or form.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > asset seizure is the norm for law enforcement in America Freeze and seizure, sure. Pre-trial disposal, no. In this case, the headline is being loose in that these aren't Bankman-Fried the natural person's shares, they're a bankrupt entity's. Selling a bankrupt entity's stuff is par for the course.
    - edmundsauto 3y ago
      Is that true when the entity itself is fraudulent? At what point can we separate SBF & Co's fraud from the company itself?
- freejazz 3y ago
  This has nothing to do with his criminal trial, this has to do with his company filing for bankruptcy. If he didn't want the gov't to auction of his companies assets in order to satisfy his creditors... then he shouldn't have declared bankruptcy, as that's exactly what happens in a bankruptcy proceeding.
  - infecto 3y ago
    Is this part of bankruptcy or the criminal trial? It was the US marshals that sold it that sounds more like criminal asset forfeiture. I did not dig too deep but not immediately clear.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- fatfingerd 3y ago
  AFAICT he pledged them to BlockFi to try to stop a margin call, and they went bankrupt, so its just a question of which bankruptcy claims they are for.
- isitmadeofglass 3y ago
  [dead]
eastbound 3y ago
What do you mean “reimburse the scammed folks”? Any holder of bitcoins would receive a share of their money back? Whatever the FBI is up to, it’s most certainly not reimbursing the customers.
- _blz2 3y ago
  Not the customers, but FTX lenders investors. There are likely tons of lawsuits filed by them to claim their piece of the govt seized assets. Its up to the govt to decide whether to help customers or investors and lenders.