SBF’s legal defense is being funded with Alameda money he gave his father

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahemerson/2023/03/29/sam-bankman-fried-legal-fees-funded-by-alameda-money-gifted-to-father-joe-bankman/

by lxm • 3 years ago

344 135 3 years ago

forbes.com

djbusby2• 3 years ago

And Dad is a Law Professor. Hope he's not teaching the ethics course.

fullstop2• 3 years ago

I've known a few people who have taught ethics courses. None of them were ethical by any stretch of the imagination.

Maybe I've just met a bad batch.

Veen• 3 years ago

There are studies that show ethicists are no more ethical than the general population.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2012.7...

However, on no issue did ethicists show unequivocally better behavior than the two comparison groups.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09515089.2019.15...

Our results indicate a successful replication of the original effect that ethicists do not behave any morally better compared to other academics across the vast majority of normative issues.

Zetice• 3 years ago

You've got to know where the line is to teach people not to cross it!

rootsudo• 3 years ago

"None of them were ethical by any stretch of the imagination."

At least they know the course material well. Isn't that the reason why you're really enrolling in the class for?

r00fus• 3 years ago

Naturally Voldemort cosplaying as a "defense against the dark arts" instructor was clearly an implication that regulatory capture is way to hide power.

skeeter2020• 3 years ago

If I was a student in his ethics course it would be a great opportunity to practice grilling a hostile witness

jeffbee• 3 years ago

Has anyone ever studied ethics at Stanford? As far as I can tell the subject is not required. CS undergrads must fulfill a "Technology in Society" requirement but it can be satisfied with bullshit like "Technology Entrepreneurship", a series of guest lectures by VCs, which is almost the opposite of studying ethics.

Nothing about a university that would let Condi Rice serve as provost screams "ethics", frankly. Their history is not one that suggests a strong ethical culture.

mahart• 3 years ago

On his staff page he's described as a "leading scholar in the field of tax law". Maybe he was the one that got FTX on QuickBooks after having been paid for 11 months there.

watwut2• 3 years ago

Ethics course is not supposed to make you better person. It teaches you some theories relevant to law practice and regulations layers are under.

salawat• 3 years ago

...Actually, it's supposed to equip you to see your actions don't occur in the void; and ensure you at least have some introductory calibration to a moral compass.

Is altering a digital artifact for someone else to be used for financial gain on their part ethical?

Transitive property says no; you're an accomplice intheir deception. The only people who tend to assert Ethics courses aren't there to help you be a better person are those that never started out with an intention to be ethical at all. At least in my experience.

lordnacho• 3 years ago

How does the law work? If you nab a pile of money from your customers and give it to your family, and then get sued, what happens? If you lose, does the court reverse all the transactions and give it to the creditors? Or can you just have your parents give you money to live off when you're out of jail? Surely not?

mindslight• 3 years ago

I believe the creditors would have to challenge the gift as a "fraudulent transfer", based on the idea that at the time the giver knew they were open to a huge liability from having taken the money in the first place. And then another similar step to go after the money that went to the attorneys.

And in this case the "creditor" would be the FTX bankruptcy estate, led by whomever has been appointed the receiver. Theoretically they should be working for creditors of FTX, but can obviously have their own motivations of expediency, not wanting to rock the boat by suing another firm, etc.

nradov2• 3 years ago

FTX creditors will presumably sue SBF's parents in US civil court and claim fraudulent conveyance. The plaintiffs will certainly ask the court to freeze those assets and not allow them to be squandered on criminal trial defense, but who knows whether the court would approve such a motion.

kibwen• 3 years ago

You always hear RICO get thrown around in these sorts of things, which allegedly allows the government to seize anything obtained as part of a criminal enterprise, but I'd need a lawyer to weigh in and determine whether that's actually true and whether RICO would apply to this case.

nickff• 3 years ago

RICO usually doesn't apply: https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-...

dragonwriter7• 3 years ago

A good guideline to use in internet discussions where this is raised is: It’s never lupus. Er, RICO, never RICO.

This is…not an exceptional case in that regard, AFAICT.

(RICO has a very specific definition of a criminal enterprise which, while it may occasionally apply to something that doesn’t look very much like the Mafia, usually doesn’t. It is not “any enterprise that involves crime”. There are a whole lot of predicate offenses, but they aren’t all crimes, and the enterprise has to relate to them in a particular way.)

boeingUH602• 3 years ago

It takes time to investigate the transfers and prove they were fraud proceeds before possibly clawing them back...as the investigation lingers, prosecutors will likely ask SBF's dad to return that money.

chollida13• 3 years ago

Well most fraud trials involve a person stealing directly from their company.

Atleast SBF took the extra step of first funneling money to Alameda and then directing Alameda to send it back to him and then send it to his dad as a tax free gift.

That way he could honestly say he personally has no money left.

That atleast makes it harder for FTX to claw back that money.

One interesting thing a lawyer pointed out to me is that a lawyer has a duty to ensure that the money used to pay them wasn't from the proceeds of a crime.

I wonder how SBF's lawyers have done thier diligence in this case and satisified themselves that this wont' get them into trouble with the state bar.

blockwriter• 3 years ago

Aren't tax free gifts capped at $14,000.00 per year?

Edit: Er, I guess it's $16,000.00 without needing to report it, and then anything above that can be offset against a $12 ish million lifetime exclusion.

https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/taxes/articl...

rsstack2• 3 years ago

You need to report a gift over $14k but you don't owe until much higher limits. Same as how people who make very little money have to report income even if it's lower than the lowest tax bracket.

Also, as a reminder, the gifter pays the tax and not the person who received the gift. If someone gifts you an illiquid asset, you aren't forced to go into debt to pay a tax. But the gifter has to figure things out on their end.

Avicebron• 3 years ago

It says so in the article, but here's some corroboration

https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/estate-tax-and-lifetime-g...

EDIT: read a little further, guess the 11-12 million exemption only lasts until 2025, so if you can use, do it fast.

NotYourLawyer3• 3 years ago

The gift tax thing seems like a distraction. He would have needed to file a gift tax return for giving $10 million, but no taxes would be due. But he could just as easily have given $100 million, filed the return, and paid a large gift tax—he had plenty of cash floating around back then.

I guess what I’m saying is, it wasn’t a way to hide the gift, because it still triggered the need for a gift tax return filing.

detourdog• 3 years ago

if the gift isn’t cash Alameda can determine the value of the gift mor or less.

HopenHeyHi• 3 years ago

Ah, The Floor Is Lava defense.

cik2e• 3 years ago

> Atleast SBF took the extra step of first funneling money to Alameda and then directing Alameda to send it back to him and then send it to his dad as a tax free gift.

I am pretty sure it's the source of the money that matters more (legal vs. illegal) than whether the accounting tricks are legally sound.

What you're saying sounds like "at least he wasn't a complete numb-nuts", but that's not much of an "at least" in this scenario.

I am pretty sure the courts will be looking for an "at least he wasn't stealing from his customers".

At least, that's the sane hope.

koolba• 3 years ago

Also if the father is “in on it”, then this would also lead to an additional conspiracy charge that adds him to the cabal.

jasondigitized• 3 years ago

I’m sure Stanford considers this ethical behavior by his father.

macspoofing• 3 years ago

That atleast makes it harder for FTX to claw back that money.

The 'Madoff Recovery Initiative' was incredibly aggressive in going after all of Madoff's family and acquaintances. SBF's family and acquaintances are going to be fighting lawsuits for years and will lose millions.

yootyootr• 3 years ago

and will lose millions.

millions they arguably shouldn't have had in the first place, since they were proceeds of crime.

jonathankoren• 3 years ago

Stealing money then gifting to yourself via a trusted straw man? Now that's effective altruism!

bee_rider3• 3 years ago

“I’ll give my ill gotten gains to someone who technically wasn’t involved (until they accepted my money)” couldn’t possibly be a new trick. (Hypothetically that is, if SBF actually did a crime; I’m not following the case).

olalonde8• 3 years ago

One interesting thing a lawyer pointed out to me is that a lawyer has a duty to ensure that the money used to pay them wasn't from the proceeds of a crime.

If that's true, it seems a bit ridiculous. SBF is pleading not guilty. Are his lawyers supposed to do their own little investigation to figure out whether their client is actually guilty?

chollida13• 3 years ago

Well as I had it explained to me.

Run the following thought experiment.

You are a lawyer. Your client is accused of robbing a bank. The bank has the serial numbers of the bills taken. Your client pays you in cash and the serial numbers match the stolen ones.

if you agree that you are being paid by the proceeds of a crime, then congrats you agree with the law and now all you are figuring out is where the line is.

Turns out its somewhere between a forensic audit of your client and 100% certainty that you're being paid with stolen funds.

The government or prosecution claiming the funds you're being paid with are from the proceeds of crime is well within the ethical and legal bounds that lawyers are held to.

Like many issues when it comes to professionals, there is often a burden on the professional to make sure they are acting ethically. Engineers can't build a building to a clients spec if it would be dangerous. Doctors have a duty of care to not harm a patient even if the patient wants to be harmed and lawyers have a duty of care to know the origins of the funds paying them.

That's one of the burdens of being a professional

Courts are more than happy to adjudicate if there is a gray area.

Also if that doesn't convince you then remember, people can be forced to hand back assets that were stolen even if the owner had no way of knowing ti was stolen. The lawyers don't want to spend all that time defending SBF and be paid with stolen funds, just to have the courts come and tell them to pay back the money as it never belonged to SBF at all.

It's in their own best interests to know and vet where the money came from.

SilasX5• 3 years ago

In the sense of whether their client has committed the underlying acts they are accused of, yes, this is something a lawyer would definitely want to know, and try to find out, as it effects what legal defenses can actually work vs. are likely to be swiftly rebutted.

(I realize there a much broader claims being made in this thread, like about where the payment money is bad and what obligations that prompts. I'm not attempting to address issues such as those, just the narrower topic above.)

watwut2• 3 years ago

Are his lawyers supposed to do their own little investigation to figure out whether their client is actually guilty?

Actually yes, they are supposed to do that. Not because of money, but as they are preparing the defense.

freejazz6• 3 years ago

Sorry, do you think ignorance is an excuse for a crime? I don't believe there is an intent requirement, so their mental state at the time of receiving the money is of no consequence.

JohnFen4• 3 years ago

Are his lawyers supposed to do their own little investigation to figure out whether their client is actually guilty?

Umm, yes? Not because of the money thing, but in order to do their job properly.

I'd think that if they were doing their job properly, it would be pretty clear pretty quickly whether or not their client is guilty. And whether or not their client is guilty is important for them to know, because it will definitely affect how they proceed with defending their client.

from2• 3 years ago

One interesting thing a lawyer pointed out to me is that a lawyer has a duty to ensure that the money used to pay them wasn't from the proceeds of a crime.

I don't think this is true in the US. Lawyers do not have any obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act or laws that would require this and there are other things like the text below that would make prosecuting a lawyer for this very difficult,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1957

(1)the term “monetary transaction” means the deposit, withdrawal, transfer, or exchange, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, of funds or a monetary instrument (as defined in section 1956(c)(5) of this title) by, through, or to a financial institution (as defined in section 1956 of this title), including any transaction that would be a financial transaction under section 1956(c)(4)(B) of this title, but such term *does not include any transaction necessary to preserve a person’s right to representation as guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the Constitution;*

https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-105000-money-laundering

Because the Department firmly believes that attorneys representing clients in criminal matters must not be hampered in their ability to effectively and ethically represent their clients within the bounds of the law, the Department, as a matter of policy, will not prosecute attorneys under § 1957 based upon the receipt of property constituting bona fide fees for the legitimate representation in a criminal matter, except if (1) *there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the attorney had actual knowledge of the illegal origin of the specific property received (prosecution is not permitted if the only proof of knowledge is evidence of willful blindness);* and (2) such evidence does not consist of (a) confidential communications made by the client preliminary to and with regard to undertaking representation in the criminal matter; or (b) confidential communications made during the course of representation in the criminal matter; or (c) other information obtained by the attorney during the course of the representation and in furtherance of the obligation to effectively represent the client.

chollida13• 3 years ago

I appreciate your response and this is what I also countered with, though not as nicely cited:)

this is a good response

https://www.moneylaunderingnews.com/2018/09/use-of-tainted-a...

Turns out its not black and white as people expect

- lawyers fees can be clawed back due to asset forfeiture.

Federal forfeiture laws, on the other hand, pose a different kind of risk for lawyers — one that the Safe Harbor Provision does not protect against. Forfeiture laws are premised, in part, on the notion that tainted assets belong to the government as of the date the underlying offense was committed

- while its true that courts have decided that taking all of a persons money so they can't pay for their defense has been ruled illegal by the courts the amount of money that lawyers think the client has can be significantly reduced by the courts. So if SBF has say $20M now, the courts can claw back 75% of that leaving the client with far less to pay than the lawyers originally though.

Or put another way, you are entitled to a defense, you are not entitled to have unlimited funds to pay for your defense.

Also given that the money is coming from SBF' dad( a third party) and not SBF this seems to be relevant.

Moreover, the Fourth Circuit has held in a divided decision that the Safe Harbor Provision does not apply in instances whereupon an attorney “receives and deposits” tainted funds from a third-party payer.

pengaru• 3 years ago

Atleast SBF took the extra step of first funneling money to Alameda and then directing Alameda to send it back to him and then send it to his dad as a tax free gift.

Isn't this worse for him in the long run if he's found guilty though? Words like "structuring", "posturing", "evasion" come to mind...

TacticalCoder3• 3 years ago

Words like "structuring"

As much as I want to see that scammer and his family rot in jail , as much as I find "structuring" totally unfair.

If you set the limit to, say "$1 K / day" and then someone does "$1 K / day, everyday", it's not doing anything wrong. Instead of inventing the concept of "structuring", instead write the actual limits more clearly: "$1 K / day, $10 K / year max" (for example). Then it's clear that the limit is $1 K / day max and that you can only do it up to 10 times a year.

For otherwise it's just one of the oh-so-many arbitrary rules invented so that even honest people may be, unknowingly, doing something illegal.

Laws against structuring makes me think of this: "The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state".

The state should make the law clear or go fuck itself.

dwighttk• 3 years ago

This isn’t that money! It’s entirely different money I saved while spending the Alameda cash!

caseysoftware• 3 years ago

Whoa.

My GUESS is that since he's being prosecuted for fraud, et al, they can't say these were illegally obtained (innocent until proven guilty) and therefore they can't seize the funds yet.

And if the lawyers are in on it, they're over billing and keeping building an escrow fund that would go back to one of them at the end.

The scumminess is rather impressive.

nradov2• 3 years ago

Prosecutors might not be able to immediately seize assets, however if they have evidence that those assets were obtained through criminal activity then they can ask the court to freeze the assets pending the outcome of a criminal trial.

TacticalCoder3• 3 years ago

And if the lawyers are in on it, they're over billing and keeping building an escrow fund that would go back to one of them at the end.

The ones in charge of the bankruptcy are also bleeding the customers and investors dry. They charged $700 million in the Madoff case. There are $10 bn missing here. It's not unthinkable they'll steal 10% of that.

They are vermins, just as scummy as SBF. But it's legal.

hgsgm2• 3 years ago

Civil forfeiture law says the money can be seized on mere suspicion of being involved in a crime.

danso2• 3 years ago

(tangent) Ok this confuses me:

(in December, their $1.8 million Palo Alto home was used to secure a $250 million bail package after Bankman-Fried was released on a personal recognizance bond.

Their Palo Alto home is worth only $1.8M? Do they live in a 1BR/0.5BA shed?

edit: Apparently the assessed value (for property taxes) is $1.8M. But realtor sites estimate it at $3.1M, and it was apparently renting for $12,000/month back in 2013. Still cheaper than I thought for a 4-br home on Stanford's Dish

https://sfstandard.com/business/inside-sam-bankman-frieds-pa...

dragonwriter7• 3 years ago

Looking right now at listings in Palo Alto, the few things in that range ($1.5M-$2M) are 2-3 bedroom, 1-3 bath, 1,200-1,900 sq. ft.

jibe• 3 years ago

The house is on the Stanford campus, and is under Stanford’s control. It can only be sold to Stanford employees, so it limits the value.

cdolan• 3 years ago

I think you make a great point and I agree, but to play devils advocate for a second...

Do we think Stanford is lacking in people willing to live there? I bet it may even increase the chance (so long as the HOA is not all that bad!)

bee_rider3• 3 years ago

It seems weird that they could us a property constrained like that to secure a bail.

ralph84• 3 years ago

They live in housing that can only be purchased by Stanford professors.

moralestapia• 3 years ago

Talk about being sheltered.

compiler-guy• 3 years ago

The house is on Stanford land and so does can only be sold to Stanford faculty or staff. In fact, it's technically not even owned, it is leased from the university.

This changes the pool of potential buyers, and therefore the market is quite different than the normal Palo Alto market.

eternalban• 3 years ago

Forbes has carved a uniquely slimely niche for itself. (These days I almost look at a Forbes promotion of a startup as a negative signal.) At the bottom of that article there are "more from Forbes" stories on the (now) 'bad bad' Sam. Search for Forbes articles from before the reveal for "more from Forbes" stories which I guess they didn't have room to link to in the bottom.

(Naturally pointing out Forbes' role in pimping Sam Bankman-Fried in no way is supporting the 'wunderkind' or his & co.'s fraud.)

jayess• 3 years ago

The FTX bankruptcy trustee will be able to claw it back as an avoidable transaction.

shapefrog• 3 years ago

The FTX bankruptcy trustee will charge $18 million in fees to claw back that 10 mil

vkou• 3 years ago

The FTX bankruptcy trustee is charging $18 million in fees (or however much he's charging) to run a team of people who have been auditing and unfucking FTX's and Alameda's books for the past four months, and will continue to for a long, long while going forward.

He's not paid $18 million to deal with any single problem with the money of a firm that kept no ~books, but had >100 offshore shell companies to conceal the flow of money, and a million people screaming at it that they are owed money. He and his team is paid to deal with the whole thing.

Also, about $10 million of that has been legal fees. [1]

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/08/ftx-bankruptcy-fees-near-20-...

TacticalCoder3• 3 years ago

The FTX bankruptcy trustee will charge $18 million in fees to claw back that 10 mil

$18 m? I thought they charged $700 m to claw back money in the Madoff case. (I may be off by one order of magnitude though). People in charge of these claw backs are thieves too and they go for easy money, legally, with the benediction of the state, at the expense of people who've been scammed.

AlbertCory• 3 years ago

As far as I understand the law, not being an actual lawyer, this is the "rationale" behind asset seizure: prevent a criminal from funding his or her defense with the proceeds of criminal activity. Obviously in the poster-child case, they haven't been convicted of anything yet.

I'm not defending asset seizure: it's become a way for the government to steal assets without trial. But SBF cleverly made it what lawyers like to call a "close legal question" by funneling the money to his father as a gift.

gumby• 3 years ago

There's an interesting ethical dilemma and it must apply to lots of cases.

It seems obvious that nobody should benefit from the results of their crime.* But if the accused is innocent until convicted, shouldn't it be OK to spend the ill gotten gains on their defense? After all, if they win the gains were legitimate, and by induction they were legit until conviction.

How is this circle squared in practice?

* this principle is more easily stated than enforced. Some places don't allow convicted criminals to earn any money from writing a book about their crimes (this rule seems reasonable) but where does it end? Apparently Bernie Madoff got respect in prison for the magnitude of his theft. That was a benefit of sorts...

njovin• 3 years ago

This is basically what civil forfeiture is designed for (although it's being severely abused). The cops arrest you and seize all assets that are suspected of being used in or obtained by the suspected crime.

This has been heavily abused in California and elsewhere [1][2] to seize assets from marijuana dispensaries or "suspected drug criminals". Cops seize product and money, never file charges, and then let the business owners fight for months/years to get their property back (often times with the seized product having long since expired), despite no charges having been filed.

IMO it's an egregious violation of the 4th amendment and it's maddening that more isn't being done to stop the practice.

[1] https://reason.com/2022/02/04/a-california-sheriff-remains-f... [2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken

dragonwriter7• 3 years ago

This is basically what civil forfeiture is designed for (although it’s being severely abused).

No, this is basically what criminal forfeiture, and freezing assets potentially subject to it, is designed for.

Civil forfeiture was designed for trade protectionism in the British Empire, but then it became an end-run around criminal process in the US, particularly around Prohibition.

sshine• 3 years ago

Portfolio diversification

AlexandrB• 3 years ago

The real Effective Altruism is the altruism we gave ourselves along the way.

jmyeet2• 3 years ago

Here are 2 questions I have about this whole FTX saga:

1. How is it that a supposed $250 million bond was secured with (according to news articles) significantly less value than that in assets? How does that work? The collateral seems to be his parents' house, a few hundred thousand in cash assets and little else beyond that. Huh? So what makes this a $250 million bond?

2. The government can (and routinely does) seize assets without the owner being convicted of anything. Hell, they do it when the owner never gets even charged with anything. To me, this is a clear 4A violation and should be unconstitutional but the 4A holds no sway over current judicial politics so here we are.

In this case we have clear evidence of fraud. Pretty much anything SBF touched with FTX or Alameda money can quite reasonably be presumed to be the proceeds of crime. Why on Earth in this case is the government not seizing, well, everything?

Bear in mind that the legal standard for this is quite broad. If you buy a $1 million home with $100,000 of fruad proceeds and $900,000 of your own money, those fraud proceeds taint the entire asset, not just the portion directly tied to fraud. As such, any money given by SBF to anyone poisons pretty much every asset the gift-receiver owns. The government would be well within its right to seize or at least freeze pretty much everything.

So how have SBF's parents escaped the government's seizure net?

If you think about it, it's the equivalent of robbing a bank and then using those stolen funds to pay for your bond and lawyer. The government wouldn't stand for that in the case of armed robbery. Why are they here?

dragonwriter7• 3 years ago

How is it that a supposed $250 million bond was secured with (according to news articles) significantly less value than that in assets? How does that work?

That’s…just the way federal bail tend to work [0].

So what makes this a $250 million bond?

Because that’s what SBF and his parents have consented to become jointly and severally liable for, with essentially no available defense (bail forfeiture is essentially an automatic default judgement) if he fails to appear, etc. The “bond” is the agreement to be subject to that liability. Security for the bond is a separate thing, and unlike many state systems, full-value security or the involvement of a licensed bail agent isn’t a norm that applies.

The government can (and routinely does) seize assets without the owner being convicted of anything. Hell, they do it when the owner never gets even charged with anything. To me, this is a clear 4A violation and should be unconstitutional but the 4A holds no sway over current judicial politics so here we are.
In this case we have clear evidence of fraud. Pretty much anything SBF touched with FTX or Alameda money can quite reasonably be presumed to be the proceeds of crime. Why on Earth in this case is the government not seizing, well, everything?

Believe it or not, even if you don’t like the process, there is legal process involved in seizures of assets suspected to be proceeds of a crime (including if they are not going through civil forfeiture, but being held as subject to future criminal forfeiture, which seems more likely in this case). “It appeared in a news article” does not fulfill the procedural requirements on its own.

[0] actually, its more of a mixed bag, IIRC, because the individual districts have their own practice, but its how federal bail often works, and in SDNY particulary.

danso2• 3 years ago

1. How is it that a supposed $250 million bond was secured with (according to news articles) significantly less value than that in assets? How does that work? The collateral seems to be his parents' house, a few hundred thousand in cash assets and little else beyond that. Huh? So what makes this a $250 million bond?

I believe it boils down to "making a statement". Even if SBF's friends and family were only able to offer up $2.5m in assets (i.e. 1% of a $250M bond, instead of the more common 10% threshold), it's still (according to the court) a massive disincentive for SBF to flee. But the court still wants to assert that he's accused of crimes that merit such a massive bond.

From Bloomberg:

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/sbf-s-250-million-bail-is-one-of...

Such bonds also signal the seriousness of the crime being charged, and federal prosecutor Nicholas Roos made that point in court.
“Mr. Bankman-Fried perpetuated a fraud of epic proportions stealing billions for customers lenders and defrauding investors,” Roos said.

That said, with the revelation in today's Forbes story, I wonder if knowing that Mr. Bankman had $10M worth of gift money from his son was known to the court at the time, or relevant to the bond agreement? i.e. would the court have demanded that money be stashed as collateral along with SBF's home? At the time the bail was announced, SBF was claiming his personal assets were in the $100,000 range

dragonwriter7• 3 years ago

Even if SBF’s friends and family were only able to offer up $2.5m in assets (i.e. 1% of a $250M bond, instead of the more common 10% threshold)

The “more common 10% ‘threshold’” isn’t actually a threshold for security pledged to the court, It’s the fee paid to a licensed bail agent (very often, legislated as the fixed or minimum fee for that service in state law) to stand as surety as an alternative to the defendant offering full value security.

But, again, that’s a common feature of state bail systems, not the federal system, which can be much more flexible.

That said, with the revelation in today’s Forbes story, I wonder if knowing that Mr. Bankman had $10M worth of gift money from his son was known to the court at the time, or relevant to the bond agreement

If it wasn’t (or if the evidence that it was stolen hasn’t already been reviewed and considered by prosecutors), I would expect further action related to bail conditions and possibly freezing/seizure of that money in the near future.

Overtonwindow• 3 years ago

This guy just won't quit. It's a circle firing squad of a mess. Even the cynic in me, who from the beginning of this affair thought he would never go to prison, is starting to gain hope that he actually will..

indigodaddy• 3 years ago

There is a sick irony in this

SBF’s legal defense is being funded with Alameda money he gave his father

Related Stories