The funds Alameda otherwise borrowed from FTX came entirely from the margin lending program, which was permissible under the Terms Of Service.
Source? My impression is that FTX and Alameda used the same bank account(s) and they (intentionally or unintentionally) let Alameda use FTX customer funds without consent, beyond just margin lending and against the Terms of Service.
There were two different ways through which Alameda used funds from FTX. One was the ~$8b via the same bank accounts which I talk about in 1. The other was ~$2-3b via the margin lending program which I talk about in 3.
Still, I think they did violate their own terms of service and effectively misappropriated/misused customers’ funds, whether or not it was intentional/fraud/criminal.
If I tell you I’ll hold your assets and won’t loan them out or trade with them, and don’t take reasonable steps to ensure that and instead actually accidentally loan them out and trade with them, then I’ve probably done something wrong.
It may not be criminal without intent, though, and I just owe you your assets (or equivalent value) back. Accidentally walking out of a store with an item you didn’t pay for isn’t a crime, although you’re still liable for returning it/repayment.
And thank you for engaging. I’m genuinely impressed with your open-mindedness in reconsidering some aspects of a heated topic that your wider community has treated as an open and shut case and that everyone is very tired thinking about.
A jury can find someone guilty of theft (or fraud) without adequate evidence of intent, but that would be a misapplication of the law and arguably wrongful conviction.
If you find out later you took something without paying and make no attempt to return or repay or don’t intend to do so, it might be theft, because then you intend to keep what you’ve taken. I don’t know. If you’re unable to pay it back for whatever reason already at the time of finding out (because of losses or spending), I don’t know how that would be treated, but probably less harshly, and maybe just under civil law, with a debt repayment plan or forfeiture of future assets, not criminal conviction.
Source? My impression is that FTX and Alameda used the same bank account(s) and they (intentionally or unintentionally) let Alameda use FTX customer funds without consent, beyond just margin lending and against the Terms of Service.
There were two different ways through which Alameda used funds from FTX. One was the ~$8b via the same bank accounts which I talk about in 1. The other was ~$2-3b via the margin lending program which I talk about in 3.
Ah, I misunderstood.
Still, I think they did violate their own terms of service and effectively misappropriated/misused customers’ funds, whether or not it was intentional/fraud/criminal.
If I tell you I’ll hold your assets and won’t loan them out or trade with them, and don’t take reasonable steps to ensure that and instead actually accidentally loan them out and trade with them, then I’ve probably done something wrong.
It may not be criminal without intent, though, and I just owe you your assets (or equivalent value) back. Accidentally walking out of a store with an item you didn’t pay for isn’t a crime, although you’re still liable for returning it/repayment.
I just read the Wikipedia page on the case and didn’t see compelling evidence of intent, at least not beyond a reasonable doubt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bankman-Fried
Also Googling “sbf prove intent” (without quotes) didn’t turn up anything very compelling, at least for the first handful of results, in my view.
I agree.
And thank you for engaging. I’m genuinely impressed with your open-mindedness in reconsidering some aspects of a heated topic that your wider community has treated as an open and shut case and that everyone is very tired thinking about.
Skeptical. Sentencing considers intent, but even those ignorant of laws themselves are found guilty:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat
(EDITED)
I didn’t refer to ignorance of the law. The point is that if you don’t know you took something without paying, it’s not theft. Theft requires intent.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/theft
A jury can find someone guilty of theft (or fraud) without adequate evidence of intent, but that would be a misapplication of the law and arguably wrongful conviction.
If you find out later you took something without paying and make no attempt to return or repay or don’t intend to do so, it might be theft, because then you intend to keep what you’ve taken. I don’t know. If you’re unable to pay it back for whatever reason already at the time of finding out (because of losses or spending), I don’t know how that would be treated, but probably less harshly, and maybe just under civil law, with a debt repayment plan or forfeiture of future assets, not criminal conviction.
Either way, fraud definitely requires intent.