[HN Gopher] In an interview, SBF admits involvement in Alameda's...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       In an interview, SBF admits involvement in Alameda's largest uses
       of funds
        
       Author : grappler
       Score  : 30 points
       Date   : 2022-12-05 21:45 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.ft.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.ft.com)
        
       | Rzor wrote:
       | I'll be incredibly surprised if all this admission-of-guilt-
       | galore doesn't get him in _real_ trouble, even if he manages to
       | get only a slap on the wrist.
       | 
       | To bypass the Paywall:
       | https://12ft.io/https://www.ft.com/content/a1df1d73-9932-4d1...
        
         | nickthegreek wrote:
         | I feel like he is 100% in real trouble. But it's mostly been
         | admission of being dumb and not of guilt. The full on admission
         | of guilt is why they could easily pick up madoff. They just got
         | to connect the dots before they can tighten the rope.
        
           | jrochkind1 wrote:
           | That this guy is still talking about this stuff in public
           | when any lawyer he has is surely telling him not to... he
           | must think he's invincible? Or he really doens't realize he's
           | done anything wrong? I could believe the second one, because
           | I think it's probably true that this is how everyone does
           | business, and most people get away with it?
        
             | birdyrooster wrote:
             | Affluenza
        
             | ghaff wrote:
             | I expect this is a very expensively choreographed
             | combination of PR and legal advice.
        
         | chaostheory wrote:
         | He's likely already minimized the penalties to the cost of
         | doing business with all the political donations he's made.
        
       | no-dr-onboard wrote:
       | does this guy not have a lawyer?
        
         | yieldcrv wrote:
         | ya know, if the FTX group really had no internal controls or
         | documentation that binds the directors to specific behaviors,
         | then an embezzlement charge could really be ruled out, same
         | with other forms of theft, or securities fraud even. in this
         | case, even the assets being traded precluded them from needing
         | compliance officers which is one of those areas where "need
         | regulation" would fit well.
         | 
         | It's really more like a phishing attack to get people to
         | voluntarily wire money to the Alameda bank account presented on
         | the website's interface, and they did.
        
         | legolas2412 wrote:
         | His parents are stanford law professors.
         | 
         | They also received a 16 million dollar home from FTX.
        
           | no-dr-onboard wrote:
           | Ok thanks, but the question still stands.
        
             | sugarpile wrote:
             | Multiple lawyers have dropped him.
        
         | nathanvanfleet wrote:
         | SBF has said that his lawyers have told him to not talk or
         | admit anything.
        
         | nemo44x wrote:
         | A lawyer would be a negative towards the defense he's already
         | playing which is the "idiot defense". [1]
         | 
         | If he acquired representation it would make him appear to:
         | 
         | 1) be aware that he did something wrong
         | 
         | 2) make his idiotic statements unreliable going forward as a
         | lawyer would filter his statements
         | 
         | 3) give the prosecution enough to work with to break his idiot
         | defense.
         | 
         | This is all part of his plan to evade accountability and prison
         | time.
         | 
         | [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot_defense
        
       | staunch wrote:
       | Many people have been confused about why he's talking so much
       | publicly, which is clearly self-destructive if he plans to mount
       | a legal defense.
       | 
       | One logical explanation is that this is a prelude to him
       | committing suicide. His public interviews and statements may be
       | his way of leaving behind some sort of explanation and
       | justification.
        
         | trashface wrote:
         | He seems to have pathologically high risk tolerance perhaps
         | enhanced by some of the medication he uses. So he might think
         | he is smart enough to get away before any law enforcement
         | agency takes action against him, by relocating out of their
         | reach.
        
         | notch656a wrote:
         | That's a unique thought I hadn't considered yet. Another may be
         | amphetamine(esque) psychosis or narcissism/sociopathy.
        
           | PaulHoule wrote:
           | I would point to a general lowering of moral standards and
           | the bad example set by Elon Musk's communications about
           | Twitter. It's not really a fair comparison (Musk seems
           | unlikely to face criminal charges) but I think the psychology
           | may be similar.
           | 
           | SBF may be kidding himself about how gullible crypto
           | investors are. Maybe he thinks if he could get people to
           | believe in FTX tokens, FTX could be solvent again.
        
       | abigail95 wrote:
       | Nobody stupid enough to honestly miss an $8B blackhole is smart
       | enough to run such disciplined interviews.
       | 
       | I'm surprised anyone is fooled by the fact he just happens to
       | remember only the facts that point to the least criminal
       | explanation.
       | 
       | What's the chance of that?
       | 
       | He's either coming clean about how he's not a smart as they said
       | he was, or he's still playing the game. It's another double down.
        
       | m_ke wrote:
       | Recommend listening to coffeezilla questioning him:
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfmBdKoqq1o
        
       | jmount wrote:
       | "Use" in this case means theft. It can't be repeated enough, they
       | stole customer funds, and did something with them their self not
       | as an agent for the customer (hesitate to say invested). At best
       | this is like your stock broker cleaning out your account and
       | going to Vegas (and claiming they new how to double "their"
       | stake, and were going to give you 10% returns back).
       | 
       | The whole SBF "effective altruism" is just a variation on
       | solipsism, the belief not being the only one to exist but the
       | only moral actor to exist. That being itself an incredibly
       | selfish or non-altruistic position.
        
       | chris_wot wrote:
       | The guy is either a conman, or a fool. Either way, he lost a lot
       | of money. He's going to have to face the consequences of his
       | actions, and he's not going to like it.
        
         | quercusa wrote:
         | Embrace the power of 'and'.
        
         | 71a54xd wrote:
         | I'm all for the justice system, but if he's given a slap on the
         | wrist he lost enough of his customer's money I don't think he'd
         | last long... Lesser crypto entrepreneurs who didn't commit
         | fraud have been targeted by PMC groups in westernized
         | nations...
        
           | notch656a wrote:
           | He admitted in an interview that Bahaman entities were
           | allowed to withdraw after the other customer's withdrawals
           | were frozen because of something to effect of him being
           | afraid of being in a country where very angry powerful people
           | are out to get you.
        
         | JKCalhoun wrote:
         | He seems to want us to believe he's a fool (which makes him a
         | conman then).
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-12-05 23:01 UTC)