If you think SBF didn’t know that AR was “borrowing” client monies until after all such borrowing was done, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on that.
As to the other part: SBF’s conduct happened, in relevant part, in the Southern District of New York (and other conduct happened with a sufficient nexus to SDNY to establish venue there). US law, not English law, governs as to whether various representations targeted at the United States (or with a sufficient nexus to the US) create a relationship of trust that gives rise to the possibility of criminal misappropriation. Also, even if the ToS were a defense as to anyone who had signed it, the alleged false statements also reached many potential customers—say, everyone who watched the Super Bowl. The offense would be complete at that moment; no contract that FTX and a new customer might subsequently sign would change the illegality of those statements.
If SBF thinks Judge Kaplan misinterpreted US law, he can take that up with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (and likely will). Interpretation of law being a question for the court is pretty well-established.
Also, I don’t see how the terms of service are even relevant to claims about fraud against investors/lenders. That’s ~$3B on those counts alone.
If you think SBF didn’t know that AR was “borrowing” client monies until after all such borrowing was done, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on that.
No, I was suggesting that I agree with “the three key witnesses for the prosecution that no one understood what had happened with the $8B in fiat deposits until it had already happened”—I wasn’t talking about all borrowing.
I don’t see how the terms of service are even relevant to claims about fraud against investors/lenders. That’s ~$3B on those counts alone.
Maybe, but people have a tendency to lump these different figures together (as it looks like you just did wrt AR’s borrowing) and I don’t think that’s helpful when trying to figure out what exactly FTX did wrong. Why shouldn’t we look at them one by one?
Besides, surely the weaker the case for fraud against customers, the more honest FTX’s self-representation would appear to be, and so the weaker the case for fraud against investors/lenders?
If you think SBF didn’t know that AR was “borrowing” client monies until after all such borrowing was done, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on that.
As to the other part: SBF’s conduct happened, in relevant part, in the Southern District of New York (and other conduct happened with a sufficient nexus to SDNY to establish venue there). US law, not English law, governs as to whether various representations targeted at the United States (or with a sufficient nexus to the US) create a relationship of trust that gives rise to the possibility of criminal misappropriation. Also, even if the ToS were a defense as to anyone who had signed it, the alleged false statements also reached many potential customers—say, everyone who watched the Super Bowl. The offense would be complete at that moment; no contract that FTX and a new customer might subsequently sign would change the illegality of those statements.
If SBF thinks Judge Kaplan misinterpreted US law, he can take that up with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (and likely will). Interpretation of law being a question for the court is pretty well-established.
Also, I don’t see how the terms of service are even relevant to claims about fraud against investors/lenders. That’s ~$3B on those counts alone.
No, I was suggesting that I agree with “the three key witnesses for the prosecution that no one understood what had happened with the $8B in fiat deposits until it had already happened”—I wasn’t talking about all borrowing.
Maybe, but people have a tendency to lump these different figures together (as it looks like you just did wrt AR’s borrowing) and I don’t think that’s helpful when trying to figure out what exactly FTX did wrong. Why shouldn’t we look at them one by one?
Besides, surely the weaker the case for fraud against customers, the more honest FTX’s self-representation would appear to be, and so the weaker the case for fraud against investors/lenders?