Didn’t Sam tell several straightforward lies? e.g. claiming that they had enough assets to fully cover the account values of all users, which they didn’t; claiming that Alameda never borrowed users’ deposits, which it did.
Nearly everyone who lost money is being (or has already been) repaid + 20% − 45% on top. Not long after the bankruptcy team took control, they had recovered enough funds such that FTX would have been able to cover what it needed to. That tells me, if Sam hadn’t filed bankruptcy (at his counsels recommendation, who later joined the bankruptcy team to earn $100′s of millions) he could have come up with the money in short order. Going by Sam’s testimony, he was keeping numbers in his head and simply thought there was more working capital than there was.… which means he didn’t intentionally defraud anyone… which is what he was convicted of.… intentional being the key word.
Those who lost money are being repaid in cash based on the value of their crypto when the bankruptcy filing was made. The market was down at that time and later recovered. The victims are not being put in the same place they would have been in absent the fraud.
“Intentional fraud” is redundant since fraud requires intent to defraud. It does not, however, require the intent to permanently deprive people of their property. So a subjective belief that the fraudster would be able to return monies to those whose funds he misappropriated due to the fraudulent scheme is not a defense here.
“[F]raud is a broad term, which includes false representations, dishonesty and deceit.” United States v. Grainger, 701 F.2d 308, 311 (4th Cir. 1983). SBF obtained client monies through false, dishonest, and deceitful representations that (for instance) the funds would not be used as Alameda’s slush fund. He knew the representations made to secure client funds were false, dishonest, and deceitful. That’s enough for the convictions.
Didn’t Sam tell several straightforward lies? e.g. claiming that they had enough assets to fully cover the account values of all users, which they didn’t; claiming that Alameda never borrowed users’ deposits, which it did.
Nearly everyone who lost money is being (or has already been) repaid + 20% − 45% on top. Not long after the bankruptcy team took control, they had recovered enough funds such that FTX would have been able to cover what it needed to. That tells me, if Sam hadn’t filed bankruptcy (at his counsels recommendation, who later joined the bankruptcy team to earn $100′s of millions) he could have come up with the money in short order. Going by Sam’s testimony, he was keeping numbers in his head and simply thought there was more working capital than there was.… which means he didn’t intentionally defraud anyone… which is what he was convicted of.… intentional being the key word.
Those who lost money are being repaid in cash based on the value of their crypto when the bankruptcy filing was made. The market was down at that time and later recovered. The victims are not being put in the same place they would have been in absent the fraud.
“Intentional fraud” is redundant since fraud requires intent to defraud. It does not, however, require the intent to permanently deprive people of their property. So a subjective belief that the fraudster would be able to return monies to those whose funds he misappropriated due to the fraudulent scheme is not a defense here.
“[F]raud is a broad term, which includes false representations, dishonesty and deceit.” United States v. Grainger, 701 F.2d 308, 311 (4th Cir. 1983). SBF obtained client monies through false, dishonest, and deceitful representations that (for instance) the funds would not be used as Alameda’s slush fund. He knew the representations made to secure client funds were false, dishonest, and deceitful. That’s enough for the convictions.