Yes, they knew. That is why multiple other people got charged. The idea that this was some huge secret was part of the media spin story because: financial company doing financial company things can't be spun the same way (the public are stupid but some people do still remember 2008). Saying "spooky autist stole money" is a much easier sell.
They had zero responsibility to disclose this to users of this exchange. Again, completely unregulated financial institution operating in the Bahamas...what could go wrong?
Ironically, you have left-wing people who appear to be puzzled about why financial regulation exist.
The reason there are laws around fraud is because a world where everyone is a shark is a world with much higher friction and transaction costs because of the lack of trust.
Better to work towards a world where "they shouldn't have trusted him" doesn't have to get said as much because it's easy to verify that if you can transact with it, it's likely to be legitimate. Why was, as you put it, "an unregulated financial institution outside the US," able to make itself so accessible? How much of it was because of dishonestly. That people "should have" seen through? Fuck that. Let's make more laws that would've stopped them even sooner. And be thankful for the ones that did finally catch him.
We should wan to make it easier for any random person and harder for a scammers. You're advocating for the reverse.
You veer off into appointed judges or elected prosecutors (is there a third option you want here instead?), like nobody's complaining about exactly that when pointing out how Trump-appointed judges give Trump an easy time, but at the end of the day: there's no defense for SBF, and nobody who wants a productive economy instead of Wall Street-and-lawyers-middleman-leech-fest should defend him.
You don't understand how laws work at an extremely basic level. If someone is operating in Canada as unlicensed hairdresser, they should not have to get a haircutting licence for NY (or whatever US state has the mad US regulations) if they cut the hair of someone from NY in Canada.
This attempt to apply national laws globally is an essential part of why the foreign policy of Western nations has been so bad. America First is an essential component of this as well, it is all the same thing.
No, I don't veer off. As I explain, the issue is that people complain very specifically about campaign finance as a problem in itself and ignore the issues with elected prosecutors and politically-appointed judges which is also very unique to the US, and causes the same outcomes as campaign finance. I helpfully explained for you in my original comment that when people are unable to see the connection between these things, it is because they have their own political motivation.
There is a defence for SBF, it is very easy: he did something that usually isn't prosecuted, the usual action would be a careful wind down that wouldn't destroy value (for the reasons here, billions of dollars was wasted because of the political context...again, people are very clear about SBF stealing money but only lawyers and consultants got FTX money), and a 30-year sentence makes absolutely no sense.
I have no idea why you are saying lawyers defend them...lawyers brought this case, there are tens of lawyers who deposited millions into their bank account last year from this case, the problem is lawyers (specifically: politically-motivated prosecutors, politically-motivated regulators, and a bankruptcy system that is designed to maximise fee income for lawyers). You are the one saying that the income of lawyers need protection.
> The actual sentence that SBF got was based on the media/political context, not his actual crimes...
He was rightfully charged with wire fraud. If you are talking about his campaign contributions, that was one of the only charges he had dropped.
It's like arguing that Bernie Madoff should have been treated better because he voted in the last Primary. Your special snowflake ideology does not acquit you from fraud and money laundering charges.
Again, comparing it with Madoff shows that you have no idea how these cases work.
Madoff lied to investors over forty years, stole their money, deposited in his bank account, and spent it.
SBF didn't commit fraud (US laws like wire fraud are deliberately vague so they can be used to bolster the political credentials of prosecutors so they can run for higher office...this is a banana republic style legal system), he ran a totally unlicensed securities exchange, that exchange lent money to a hedge fund he also controlled, and that fund temporarily turned out not to be good credit.
If you followed the case, you will know that prosecutors never explained where the money went...it just disappeared...the reason why is because what happened is the same thing that happens at every bank in the world. A recent example is H20, investor's money was lost lending to an (essentially) related party, this is in a jurisdiction where there was a duty for oversight, customers were missold this investment (again, in a jurisdiction where this was a requirement), and the fund has been frozen since 2020...the result has been a fine, deauthorization of the firm, etc. No-one was put in jail for three decades, fees were disgorged but only on related products, etc.
...and this is for a regulated, onshore product...not a unlicensed crypto exchange operating in the Bahamas.
