[HDThoreaun]

It really looks a bit less clear cut than you’re saying. First I’m not sure he’s subject to American financial laws at all since ftx was offshore. Second he has some sort of explanation of alameda just taking a margin loan and he had no idea that the collateral was worthless. Would that fly in the us? Probably not. In the Bahamas? Who knows.

[influxmoment]

Let's not be silly. The criminal himself admitted he stole the money. It's not rocket science. If your banker tells you he used your savings for his holiday it's not ambiguous

The problem is both his parents are Stanford professes and lawyer. He business partner father is a MIT professor. NYT and WSJ are trying to coving up the stolen money. This is what makes it complicated and why he might not be charged

[hnfong]

> It's not rocket science.

It's not rocket science, but it involves banking and property law. I'm not sure which one is more complicated.

> If your banker tells you he used your savings for his holiday it's not ambiguous

In fact, your banker does routinely use your savings for his holiday. This is called "fractional-reserve banking", where the bank doesn't put your money in a metaphorical "safe", but rather they use it for whatever. Most of the money is loaned to other parties, but the money can also be used to pay employees' salaries (which can get used on a holiday).

I'm not saying FTX didn't do anything criminal. Most likely they did. It's just that laws are sometimes more complex than they seem. (And that you probably have the wrong impression of what your bank can do with your money?)

[influxmoment]

It's a meaningless statement that can be said about anything. It's more complicated.

You intensionally misconstrued the banking theft example as legitimate lending to make a nonexistent point

[hnfong]

> It's a meaningless statement that can be said about anything.

Which statement?

> It's more complicated.

Says the person who claimed "It's not rocket science."

> You intensionally misconstrued

Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> the banking theft example

Even during a bank run, employees are supposed to get paid. When the banker takes your money and uses it to pay salary, it's not banking theft. Theft happens when the exchange (not banker) promises you to hold your assets in escrow and then uses it to pay themselves. There's a legal difference between bankers and exchanges in which one borrows your money, and the other holds your assets on your behalf.

The fact that you don't (want to) understand the point doesn't make it non-existent.

[JohnFen]

>I’m not sure he’s subject to American financial laws at all since ftx was offshore.

He almost certainly is. Under US law, it doesn't actually matter where you're based. If you are engaging in substantial activity in the US, and have a presence in the US, then you are within the jurisdiction of the US, at least for that portion.

[newaccount74]

FTX could probably be sued in every jurisdiction where they had customers.

[HDThoreaun]

I have no idea what the deal with FTX.us is, but the main exchange can plausibly say they had no customers in the US and did no business there. American IPs couldn't enter the site.

[BLKNSLVR]

FTX.us was also dragged down by the last ditch flick of the Balrog's flaming whip