Why Is No One Asking SFB What Happened to the $3.3B He Borrowed?

Post by tom-thistime » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 8:46 PM UTC

georgeplusplus wrote: post #89

ethanbond wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to me people have completely unrealistic expectations of how financial crimes play out. This will take years to unwind. Pretty obvious the "why isn't he in jail yet" screaming is coming from the same place as "why aren't I rich yet," on which this entire empire was built. This stuff takes time. He's very obviously going to prison. For context: Enron, whose operations and collapse caused way more negative impact…

>>>Seems to me people have completely unrealistic expectations of how financial crimes play out. This will take years to unwind. I remember Bernie Madoffs case unwinding rather quickly once news broke. The elephant in the room that needs to be addressed is that SFB was the second largest doner to the democratic party where the DOJ is headed by an democratic appointee. This is a very bad look for justice and the democ…

Post by isitmadeofglass » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 9:06 PM UTC

gojomo wrote: post #84

Several reports – & SBF in recent statements – have identified $2.1B to $3B as the cost of buying out others' stake in FTX, primarily Binance (an early investor). That was true traditional but not publcly-traded equity, not FTT tokens (though perhaps FTT tokens were accepted as part or most of the payment value out). Now, by structuring these as "loans" to SBF, for him alone to increase his (already overwhemling) maj…

Post by coldtea » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 9:35 PM UTC

ethanbond wrote: post #53

coldtea wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't sound like a consideration law enforcement has or should have... They either have something to get him for or not. And he might have connections or not. They wont have people that did crime running around just in case they reveal something more...

You don't think law enforcement considers whether it has enough evidence for a conviction prior to arresting someone, especially if that person is 1) actively producing more evidence of the crime by the minute, 2) not apparently a flight risk, and 3) not actively further harming the public?

Post by tmaly » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 10:02 PM UTC

mikejulietbravo wrote: post #20

tom-thistime wrote: post #12

This may be a "culture gap" (or language gap) between crypto and traditional finance. The FT text directly addresses the question that we're told "No one [is] asking." They asked where's the money, and they're exposing the fact that no coherent response has been forthcoming. That's reporting. The likely interpretation of that piece of reporting is crystal clear to the intended readership. (I.e., the money is probably…

Correct - the "everyone" is mainly NYT and some politicians. There are some questions there as it's a bit sketchy why they're treating him with such kid gloves.

Post by dheera » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 10:03 PM UTC

tom-thistime wrote: post #99

gitfan86 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main difference is that banks enforce a low loan to value ratio and collateral. So a bank will give a 10k personal loan to someone who has 100k of stock and 500k of equity in their home. If that person doesn't pay back the loan the bank can sell some of that person's stock or put a lean on the person's house. With FTX no one was putting up collateral other than crypto.

In addition, banks don't precisely lend out "money they don't have." They lend out cash they don't have against outstanding loans that are rationally expected to be repaid. If those loans are bad and the bank conceals it, or if they misrepresent the amount of those loans, then that's fraud. (IANAL)