[benzible]

That is not how any of this works. He was convicted of fraud, and fraud was committed the moment he transferred the funds to Alameda. That he placed some bets that worked out, like his Anthropic investment, doesn't negate the crime any more than if I robbed a bank, placed a winning bet with it and returned the funds with interest.

[Lerc]

I'm saying a Fraud conviction is not the same a stealing. I'm completely ok with a conviction for fraud, provided that the conviction and sentencing is based upon that fraud.

I would characterise robbing a bank, placing a bet and returning the funds as theft.

However if you entrusted me with $500 and I gambled and paid you back when you wanted the $500, I would not say that is theft. If I had promised not to gamble, then it would have been fraudulent.

[CPLX]

You can characterize things however you want. But "theft" and "fraud" are extensively defined concepts in caselaw. Fraud, specifically, is legally defined quite differently than what most people think the word means in common usage and your example here does not have much relationship to it.

[Lerc]

Well I have only seen media reports alleging theft, such as the article linked, they don't necessarily have to conform to legal definitions. A cynical person might suggest that perhaps media coverage deliberately chooses between colloquial, legal, and scientific definitions at will depending on the narrative they would like to create.

Was there ever a charge of theft in the legal sense filed in court?

[davyAdewoyin]

Except SBF didn't gamble away the money (still a criminal offence if he did); he spent it on lavish goods and apartments, with a lot of political donations. The very definition of fraud is deception, misappropriation, and loss to the users, all of which did happen.

In between placing a bet and returning the funds, the customer's funds were totally non-existent hence the loss to the user. That things later worked out after some years does not take away the misappropriation and that there was no actual money where it was meant to be at that moment, hence a fraud.

[nullc]

It's hardly even that-- he dumped the remaining customer assets to briefly crash the price of Bitcoin... causing an understatement in what he took from people.

[root-parent]

Proof you can graduate from MIT and still be completely dumb.

[forinti]

I know people with doctorates who can't organise their lives. Being a good student does not make you smart in all aspects of your life.

[tsunamifury]

Except when you pay someone to manage your money.

Remember this.

[gcheong]

Clarify? I don't understand how whether or not I pay someone to manage my money makes a difference as to whether what they did was commit fraud. People paid Bernie Madoff to manage their money and early investors got promised returns but he still went to jail because he was running an illegal ponzi scheme.

[tsunamifury]

They have far greater latitude to move it and do what they deem smartest with it. And take fees for themselves. And put you in deals that benefits other clients they prefer.

And on and on. And on.

Dumping, swapping, bag holding, fee based investments that are crap. All legal.