5 ms·

From the emails that were released in court, it's clear that if they did not enable his crimes, they certainly profited from them and encouraged the continuance

From the emails that were released in court, it's clear that if they did not enable his crimes, they certainly profited from them and encouraged the continuance of the enterprise. The entire family exudes entitlement

swores 3y ago
Lots of the world, including professional investors, thought FTX was a successful, big, profitable business. I've no idea if SBF told his parents what dodgy stuff was going on or not, but if he didn't then is it unreasonable for them to think "our son is rich from being a successful entrepreneur, of course we'll accept gifts from him"? I feel they should only be in legal trouble if it's proven they knew laws were being broken. I don't run a criminal enterprise, but if I did then I'd sure as hell give my parents a version of the truth that excluded criminality...
- CPLX 3y ago
  This sounds like a hypothetical speculative answer. In the actual world we live in there are pages of emails and other evidence that they were involved in the commission of felonies.
  - swores 3y ago
    I've not followed the case closely enough to know the details, but as I said in previous comment - if there's evidence they knew, then sure they should be prosecuted.
    - soneca 3y ago
      The comment you first replied to started with ”from the emails…”. So it’s very odd to speculate on a theoretical defense without knowing the details, in particularly, what the emails said.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - swores 3y ago
        The comment I replied to suggested the emails proved they got money from their son, not proved they knew anything illegal was going on. To quote the comment I replied to: "From the emails that were released in court, it's clear that if they did not enable his crimes, they certainly profited from them and encouraged the continuance of the enterprise" If they thought "the enterprise" was just a hugely successful startup, then why wouldn't they accept money from their newly rich son?
        CPLX 3y ago
        But it didn’t happen that way. There are emails where the guy’s mom appears to be instigating brazen violations of various laws, among other things. There doesn’t really appear to be much question they were active participants in a massive criminal fraud conspiracy. That’s what the article is about. The only vagueness is if the DOJ feels like it makes sense to prosecute it.
- zimpenfish 3y ago
  > I feel they should only be in legal trouble if it's proven they knew laws were being broken. Given they're both law professors, I think they could be expected to have a clearer view of laws and the breaking thereof than your average set of parents. But also "[Bankman] reportedly also served as the first attorney for FTX" which suggests an even deeper insight into what may have been going on.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  You need mens rea, but that's (more or less) satisfied with "This sounds very shady but we like the money." It doesn't require explicit and specific knowledge of the laws being broken. Although given that his mother is considered an expert on ethics, and his father is a Professor of Law and Business at Stanford, I'm finding it hard to imagine they were blindsided by what happened.
- JackFr 3y ago
  The idea that only a tiny handful of people knew about Bernie Madoff’s fraud was simply a lie to keep a lot of people out of jail. It’s proved very effective. When your relatively removed it’s not that difficult to generate reasonable doubt. Same exact vibe here. Everyone knew. It’s very easy to be ignorant when ignorance keeps you from a very long prison sentence.
hef19898 3y ago
What really puzzles me, regardless if it is FTX or any other case of white collar crime and anti-trust case, how much of a paper trail people leave. Hell, I don't leave half as much of an e-mail trail for my daily work as SBF and his mother did on campaign contributions...
- sinuhe69 3y ago
  Don’t you think they have a legal requirement to retain their business communications?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - hef19898 3y ago
    TFX didn't give a fuck about compliance. And I am acutely aware of retention policies, after all I passed enough SOX audits in my life. I just prefer to discuss stuff verbally and trust people to follow through on their end. And, hypothetically, I was paet of a discussion in how to avoid being named as political donor, I sure as hell wouldn't put any of it in writing, e-mail, chat or otherwise. Unless, of course, I'd need some paper trail to protect my own ass down the line.

swores 3y ago

Lots of the world, including professional investors, thought FTX was a successful, big, profitable business. I've no idea if SBF told his parents what dodgy stuff was going on or not, but if he didn't then is it unreasonable for them to think "our son is rich from being a successful entrepreneur, of course we'll accept gifts from him"? I feel they should only be in legal trouble if it's proven they knew laws were being broken. I don't run a criminal enterprise, but if I did then I'd sure as hell give my parents a version of the truth that excluded criminality...

CPLX 3y ago
This sounds like a hypothetical speculative answer. In the actual world we live in there are pages of emails and other evidence that they were involved in the commission of felonies.
- swores 3y ago
  I've not followed the case closely enough to know the details, but as I said in previous comment - if there's evidence they knew, then sure they should be prosecuted.
  - soneca 3y ago
    The comment you first replied to started with ”from the emails…”. So it’s very odd to speculate on a theoretical defense without knowing the details, in particularly, what the emails said.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - swores 3y ago
      The comment I replied to suggested the emails proved they got money from their son, not proved they knew anything illegal was going on. To quote the comment I replied to: "From the emails that were released in court, it's clear that if they did not enable his crimes, they certainly profited from them and encouraged the continuance of the enterprise" If they thought "the enterprise" was just a hugely successful startup, then why wouldn't they accept money from their newly rich son?
      - CPLX 3y ago
        But it didn’t happen that way. There are emails where the guy’s mom appears to be instigating brazen violations of various laws, among other things. There doesn’t really appear to be much question they were active participants in a massive criminal fraud conspiracy. That’s what the article is about. The only vagueness is if the DOJ feels like it makes sense to prosecute it.
zimpenfish 3y ago
> I feel they should only be in legal trouble if it's proven they knew laws were being broken. Given they're both law professors, I think they could be expected to have a clearer view of laws and the breaking thereof than your average set of parents. But also "[Bankman] reportedly also served as the first attorney for FTX" which suggests an even deeper insight into what may have been going on.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
You need mens rea, but that's (more or less) satisfied with "This sounds very shady but we like the money." It doesn't require explicit and specific knowledge of the laws being broken. Although given that his mother is considered an expert on ethics, and his father is a Professor of Law and Business at Stanford, I'm finding it hard to imagine they were blindsided by what happened.
JackFr 3y ago
The idea that only a tiny handful of people knew about Bernie Madoff’s fraud was simply a lie to keep a lot of people out of jail. It’s proved very effective. When your relatively removed it’s not that difficult to generate reasonable doubt. Same exact vibe here. Everyone knew. It’s very easy to be ignorant when ignorance keeps you from a very long prison sentence.

hef19898 3y ago

What really puzzles me, regardless if it is FTX or any other case of white collar crime and anti-trust case, how much of a paper trail people leave. Hell, I don't leave half as much of an e-mail trail for my daily work as SBF and his mother did on campaign contributions...

sinuhe69 3y ago
Don’t you think they have a legal requirement to retain their business communications?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hef19898 3y ago
  TFX didn't give a fuck about compliance. And I am acutely aware of retention policies, after all I passed enough SOX audits in my life. I just prefer to discuss stuff verbally and trust people to follow through on their end. And, hypothetically, I was paet of a discussion in how to avoid being named as political donor, I sure as hell wouldn't put any of it in writing, e-mail, chat or otherwise. Unless, of course, I'd need some paper trail to protect my own ass down the line.