6 ms·

Ex-Alameda CEO Ellison Emerges as Central Figure at Bankman-Fried Trial

39 points by siftrics 3y ago

Crosseye_Jack 3y ago
https://archive.ph/zSvMo https://archive.ph/zSvMo
racked 3y ago
A clear warning to never go into business with your boy/girlfriend. (Ellison in this case) Business relationships need clear, rational boundaries or there will be hell to pay.
- StressedDev 3y ago
  You are right that dating at work can lead to a lot of drama and should be avoided. That being said, that was not the problem at FTX/Alemeda. The problem with FTX was it was a fraud. San Bankman-Fried speculated with customer money while lying about what he was doing. FTX explicitly stated it did not speculate with customer money on its web site.
  - racked 3y ago
    Oh of course, I'm not condoning his behaviour at all. That he (formally still allegedly) behaved like a crook seems clear.
  - pylua 3y ago
    But are you more likely to collude or perpuate a fraud with someone you are dating or close with ? Theranos is another fraud that, while a different situation, included dating between two high ranking members of the company . That could indicate that these sorts of relationships help frauds grow which is part of the problem.
    - moralestapia 3y ago
      >But are you more likely to collude or perpetuate a fraud with someone you are dating or close with? Of course!
    - c22 3y ago
      Or people who are prone to commiting fraud also hold less reservations about workplace romance.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    (Just a reminder that 60% of adults have had a workplace romance. In case some engineers were trying to optimize out that risk too, while wondering why they have difficulty meeting anyone. You’re barely staying at these jobs for 18 months, don't worry about it failing and being awkward, it wont be for long)
    - nwah1 3y ago
      Citation needed
    - mvdtnz 3y ago
      There's not much point using parentheses if you're going to surround your entire post with them.
    - EdwardDiego 3y ago
      60%? /me looks at wife and 1/10 of myself dubiously.
- dgellow 3y ago
  Or, you know, do not steal billions from your customers.
hooverd 3y ago
Look at the total compensation numbers for everyone involved. They did Caroline dirty. Link: https://www.businessinsider.com/caroline-ellison-paid-6-million-dollars-alameda-2023-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/caroline-ellison-paid-6-mill...
- SnorkelTan 3y ago
  Do you have a link for this? I haven't followed the trial closely.
  - hooverd 3y ago
    Updated my parent comment. 6 million to SBFs 2.2 billion.
- reaperman 3y ago
  > Look at the total compensation numbers for everyone involved. I looked again but I don't see these in the article.
  - hooverd 3y ago
    It's not in the article. https://www.businessinsider.com/caroline-ellison-paid-6-million-dollars-alameda-2023-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/caroline-ellison-paid-6-mill...
- stevenwoo 3y ago
  It seems undeniable they were stealing from people and she knew and was part of the operation. She is likely going to get a minimal sentence by cooperating with the prosecution. The only ethical person in the room resigned as soon as he realized what FTX and Alameda were doing according to his testimony in court today. SBF managing to give his girlfriend much less compensation in stolen money than his father seems like a minor lapse compared to all the other actual criminal acts going on here.
  - wly_cdgr 3y ago
gizajob 3y ago
Ohhhhhh so it was all her fault. I see now. Makes perfect sense.
- jimz 3y ago
  Eh, the article is extremely unclear as to what the context is surrounding the assertion since opening statements should be finished on the day after the jury is empaneled, and so "when it's their turn" could refer to either opening statements (which is aimed at essentially nobody but more of an outline of the case from each side for the jury) or cross examination (which might be a bit early, but not impossible, but certainly would be directed at Ellison specifically). It's impossible to tell without transcripts or at the very least better reporting, but the whole "it was someone else's fault" defense tends to work better when that someone else openly admits that it's their fault instead of the other way around. Federal prosecutors, in any case, don't fall for that anymore, although it is still very very very occasionally seen in state courts where a witness given immunity testifies that they were the guilty party when the issue involves identification and the act can only involve either/or and not both potential codefendants and there are no witnesses. Those are the types of cases that the feds would much rather decline prosecution to let the state prosecutors have their shot if they don't think they can get a plea anyhow. Cases where the feds are willing to go to trial on are almost always cases where defense ends up trying to mitigate instead of going for a straight acquittal on all counts, especially since this is really just a fraud/money laundering case and there's little chance of the government making their case too complicated for the jury. SBF not taking a plea is frankly idiotic but then again, the first murder trial I've been part of the defense for, we worked our asses off and got a hung jury, prosecutor offered a manslaughter 2, time served, which is as close to a win for us as we can get outside of acquittal, but the client adamantly refused and retrial on the same evidence got the kid 28 years so, lead a horse to water, etc.

39 points by siftrics 3y ago

https://archive.ph/zSvMo https://archive.ph/zSvMo

A clear warning to never go into business with your boy/girlfriend. (Ellison in this case) Business relationships need clear, rational boundaries or there will be hell to pay.

StressedDev 3y ago
You are right that dating at work can lead to a lot of drama and should be avoided. That being said, that was not the problem at FTX/Alemeda. The problem with FTX was it was a fraud. San Bankman-Fried speculated with customer money while lying about what he was doing. FTX explicitly stated it did not speculate with customer money on its web site.
- racked 3y ago
  Oh of course, I'm not condoning his behaviour at all. That he (formally still allegedly) behaved like a crook seems clear.
- pylua 3y ago
  But are you more likely to collude or perpuate a fraud with someone you are dating or close with ? Theranos is another fraud that, while a different situation, included dating between two high ranking members of the company . That could indicate that these sorts of relationships help frauds grow which is part of the problem.
  - moralestapia 3y ago
    >But are you more likely to collude or perpetuate a fraud with someone you are dating or close with? Of course!
  - c22 3y ago
    Or people who are prone to commiting fraud also hold less reservations about workplace romance.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  (Just a reminder that 60% of adults have had a workplace romance. In case some engineers were trying to optimize out that risk too, while wondering why they have difficulty meeting anyone. You’re barely staying at these jobs for 18 months, don't worry about it failing and being awkward, it wont be for long)
  - nwah1 3y ago
    Citation needed
  - mvdtnz 3y ago
    There's not much point using parentheses if you're going to surround your entire post with them.
  - EdwardDiego 3y ago
    60%? /me looks at wife and 1/10 of myself dubiously.
dgellow 3y ago
Or, you know, do not steal billions from your customers.

hooverd 3y ago

Look at the total compensation numbers for everyone involved. They did Caroline dirty. Link: https://www.businessinsider.com/caroline-ellison-paid-6-million-dollars-alameda-2023-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/caroline-ellison-paid-6-mill...

SnorkelTan 3y ago
Do you have a link for this? I haven't followed the trial closely.
- hooverd 3y ago
  Updated my parent comment. 6 million to SBFs 2.2 billion.
reaperman 3y ago
> Look at the total compensation numbers for everyone involved. I looked again but I don't see these in the article.
- hooverd 3y ago
  It's not in the article. https://www.businessinsider.com/caroline-ellison-paid-6-million-dollars-alameda-2023-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/caroline-ellison-paid-6-mill...
stevenwoo 3y ago
It seems undeniable they were stealing from people and she knew and was part of the operation. She is likely going to get a minimal sentence by cooperating with the prosecution. The only ethical person in the room resigned as soon as he realized what FTX and Alameda were doing according to his testimony in court today. SBF managing to give his girlfriend much less compensation in stolen money than his father seems like a minor lapse compared to all the other actual criminal acts going on here.
- wly_cdgr 3y ago

gizajob 3y ago

Ohhhhhh so it was all her fault. I see now. Makes perfect sense.

jimz 3y ago
Eh, the article is extremely unclear as to what the context is surrounding the assertion since opening statements should be finished on the day after the jury is empaneled, and so "when it's their turn" could refer to either opening statements (which is aimed at essentially nobody but more of an outline of the case from each side for the jury) or cross examination (which might be a bit early, but not impossible, but certainly would be directed at Ellison specifically). It's impossible to tell without transcripts or at the very least better reporting, but the whole "it was someone else's fault" defense tends to work better when that someone else openly admits that it's their fault instead of the other way around. Federal prosecutors, in any case, don't fall for that anymore, although it is still very very very occasionally seen in state courts where a witness given immunity testifies that they were the guilty party when the issue involves identification and the act can only involve either/or and not both potential codefendants and there are no witnesses. Those are the types of cases that the feds would much rather decline prosecution to let the state prosecutors have their shot if they don't think they can get a plea anyhow. Cases where the feds are willing to go to trial on are almost always cases where defense ends up trying to mitigate instead of going for a straight acquittal on all counts, especially since this is really just a fraud/money laundering case and there's little chance of the government making their case too complicated for the jury. SBF not taking a plea is frankly idiotic but then again, the first murder trial I've been part of the defense for, we worked our asses off and got a hung jury, prosecutor offered a manslaughter 2, time served, which is as close to a win for us as we can get outside of acquittal, but the client adamantly refused and retrial on the same evidence got the kid 28 years so, lead a horse to water, etc.