[semiquaver]

> That said, the SEC, which AFAIU would normally take the lead

The SEC only has civil enforcement authority, ie lawsuits. Criminal complaints must be referred to DOJ. They also tend to be much less creative than Justice at finding jurisdiction over non-US entities.

The entire reason crypto companies incorporate outside the US is to avoid SEC jurisdiction. But crimes against US persons are crimes wherever the company is located.

[wahern]

But still the SEC is usually in the lead initially, before referral to the DoJ, and thus the SEC would be the gatekeeper and pace setter, especially this early on. They're in the best position to begin gathering and analyzing evidence, afterall, as well as determining impact and priority. (But please correct me if I'm wrong. The closest I've ever been to such types of investigations is hearing war stories from a law professor who had worked either at the IRS, or at the DoJ on some cases referred from the IRS. Other than that, I just follow the news and interesting legal cases.)

Perhaps the DoJ has already starting formally looking at FTX, et al, on their own. OTOH, I actually had never heard of FTX or Bankman-Fried before recently, and honestly still don't get what the hubbub is about. I'm skeptical how impactful the collapse truly is, beyond the rarified world of crypto enthusiasts, wealthy tech investors, etc. And given that its overseas, I really wouldn't expect (either pragmatically or idealistically) the SEC or DoJ to rapidly shift significant resources and attention to FTX; certainly not on the order of days or weeks.