Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by influxmoment 1298 days ago
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
1 comments
hnfong 1298 days ago
> 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?)

link
influxmoment 1298 days ago
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

link
hnfong 1298 days ago
> 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.

link