Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SBF Arrested by Bahamian Authorities

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

851–860 of 886 posts

Re: SBF Arrested by Bahamian Authorities

#851

Post by throwaway290 »

alwayslikethis wrote: post #812
throwaway290 wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So by that logic monero is a perfect laundering mechanism? If a criminal (ransomware/kidnapper/bloody kleptodictator) simply exchanges dirty money through monero then law enforcement can't prove anything to stop them, so they can create a comfortable life for themselves while continuing the crime right?

It would be, if it were to be widely accepted for things other than drugs or other illegal services. At current adoption levels, the liquidity is enough for some small scale illegal fund transfer or some drug trade, but not nearly enough for big money laundering operations (good luck cashing out $100M worth of monero without tanking the price).

If they can launder even a million dollars this way it seems like an example of conflict of interest between people who want less crime and people who the gov to not take their money.

Re: SBF Arrested by Bahamian Authorities

#852

Post by RC_ITR »

dragonwriter wrote: post #837
RC_ITR wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe the Alameda execs are trying to say they just made irresponsible gambles (like a shitty Wall St investor) but SBF is the one who secretly covered the massive losses with FTX customer assets without telling the public and was responsible for the "dual accounting" issue where deposits were counted twice. Among all the other things that they did wrong. Here’s the crazy thing. Maybe they pierce the veil and say t…

> Maybe they pierce the veil and say the two companies acted as one, but hedge funds fail all the time. “Piercing the veil” is a term of art for holding shareholders accountable for corporate liabilities notwithstanding the civil liability shield usually provided by the corporate form. Holding coconspirators accountable for their role in a criminal conspiracy doesn’t have a special name because it is routine rather t…

Sigh. Why is HN always like this? (don’t answer, I know)

Piercing the veil broadly refers to removing limited liability protections because the individuals behaved in such a way (criminally) that they have forfeited their protections.

The most common people held to limited liability protections are shareholders in limited liability corporations (LLCs)

A different sort of limited liability is the idea that customers/partners of a fraudulent business are not liable for that fraud, unless they committed gross negligence in allowing the fraud to continue.

To your point, there is not a snappy term for that specific phenomenon, because it is so rare, but piercing the veil 100% applies here because it refers to the “veil of limited liability”.

Re: SBF Arrested by Bahamian Authorities

#854

Post by MrMan »

PaulHoule wrote: post #401
kasey_junk wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bernie Madoff sat on SEC advisory committees and was the onetime chairman of Nasdaq.

Madoff's scam was so baffling because his contributions to finance before that were legendary. He practically invented modern market making but his firm and others following in his footstep were wiped out by HFTs.

I think they were gradually decimated due to shrinking margins but that was partly due to decimalization, Reg NMS and other market structural reforms / changes. Then HFTs stared to flourish which drove the older market makers out of the picture.

Re: SBF Arrested by Bahamian Authorities

#855

Post by MrMan »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #223
object-a wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They ask about the real estate purchases, they ask about the transfers, they ask about conflicts of interest and criminal liability. How can a live unedited interview with those questions be a puff piece?

People here love to hate the press for some reason.

they have been trained to hate the press

Re: SBF Arrested by Bahamian Authorities

#856

Post by hackerlight »

SilverBirch wrote: post #762
hackerlight wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conspiracy theorists and professional cynics have been out in force. The reality of the situation is, SBF is so widely despised by the voting public that an example of him must be made, and any supposed power that SBF had through his political giving and connections was not close to enough.

What is Crypto if it's not a business entirely driven by cynicism and conspiracy. It was literally born from the 2007-8 financial crisis. Everyone is viewing this in the context of no one facing any consequences for that.

The FTX situation wasn't directly related to crypto from a legal standpoint. It was old school embezzlement of customer property where old school laws apply.

Re: SBF Arrested by Bahamian Authorities

#857

Post by dragonwriter »

RC_ITR wrote: post #852
dragonwriter wrote: post #837

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe they pierce the veil and say the two companies acted as one, but hedge funds fail all the time. “Piercing the veil” is a term of art for holding shareholders accountable for corporate liabilities notwithstanding the civil liability shield usually provided by the corporate form. Holding coconspirators accountable for their role in a criminal conspiracy doesn’t have a special name because it is routine rather t…

Sigh. Why is HN always like this? (don’t answer, I know) Piercing the veil broadly refers to removing limited liability protections because the individuals behaved in such a way (criminally) that they have forfeited their protections. The most common people held to limited liability protections are shareholders in limited liability corporations (LLCs) A different sort of limited liability is the idea that customers/p…

> Piercing the veil broadly refers to removing limited liability protections because the individuals behaved in such a way (criminally) that they have forfeited their protections.

There is no “limited liability” for criminal sanction to which the term applies. There are criminal immunities, but finding something to be within an exception to one is not called “piercing the veil” in any context.

> A different sort of limited liability is the idea that customers/partners of a fraudulent business are not liable for that fraud

“People other the person committing a wrong are not liable for the wrong” is not generally a “form of limited liability”; it is the basic rule of initial liability. An exception to that is respondeat superior in which a principle is responsible for his agents liability in a broad range of circumstances, and corporate limited liability is an exception to that, since the corporation could otherwise be seen as an agent for its shareholders.

Finding that someone committed a wrong related to a third-party wrong that makes them vicariously liable for that third-party wrong is not generally called “piercing the veil”.

And that’s all in civil liability, which is the only domain where “piercing the veil” applies at all.

> To your point, there is not a snappy term for that specific phenomenon, because it is so rare

No, again, charging co-conspirators in a criminal conspiracy, regardless of their other business relations to each other, isn’t “rare”, has nothing to do with “gross negligence”; it doesn’t have (another) snappy name because its central to the point of the crime of conspiracy.

Re: SBF Arrested by Bahamian Authorities

#860

Post by object-a »

soheil wrote: post #753
object-a wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They ask about the real estate purchases, they ask about the transfers, they ask about conflicts of interest and criminal liability. How can a live unedited interview with those questions be a puff piece?

Except that only a moron would ask those questions in a vacuum like Sorkin did without a single follow up. He didn't challenge a single one of his answers when there is so much evidence against the lies he spewed. It's really not that hard to understand, but sure go ahead deny this was anything but grade-A journalism, if you're a NYT fanboy you'll find a way. It's as if SBF lawyers handed NYT a list of questions to a…

I don't think this is a correct representation of the interview. Sorkin starts by reading a letter from an FTX customer that directly accuses SBF of stealing. The next 30 or so minutes are repeated follow ups on commingling of assets between Alameda + FTX, and Sorkin highlights past statements SBF made that seem to contradict with current reality. Sorkin even has this:

SORKIN: I think the question is whether you supposed to have access to these accounts to begin with. If I worked at a bank and was a bank teller and I decided to leave the bank at the end of the evening and take the cash that I ostensibly had access to, even if I intended to bring it back to the bank later or with even more money to give them back — I still stole that money.

The full transcript is here: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/01/business/dealbook/sam-ban...

Post reply on HN