I know he was the second highest contributor to the Democratic Party, but certainly there are Democrats that have been financially crippled by this guy and should demand his arrest. No?
The SEC and DOJ are still investigating him for criminal charges, I believe? Criminal charges can (and hopefully will) come. I am generally sick of the general lack of accountability at the individual executive level for corporate crime. Enron, Trump Org, etc...
SBF played both sides of the aisle with his political contributions. He publicly gave to Dems (but supported centrist dems like Henry Cuellar over insurgent Bernie aligned leftist Jessica Cisneros) because that fit with his profile of being a do gooder with his "effective altruism" bs. But behind the scenes, he gave equal amounts to Republicans through dark money donations because his ultimate goal was to prevent crypto regulation.
As noted above, crypto does not fall under either the SEC or Commodities Future Trading Commission. At best, the FTC would have jurisdiction to the extent there was advertising or sales practices that violated the FTC Act's broad prohibitions on deceptive trade practices. But the FTC rarely makes criminal referrals. So, it is pretty much just the FBI and state criminal enforcement to find evidence of criminal fraud, embezzlement, etc. And it is not a crime to be bad at business and run a business into the ground. And to make matters more difficult, SBF ran his business from the Bahamas. So, getting a warrant to search his business and seize records would depend on cooperation from Bahamian officials. That just means things will move very slowly.
Ultimately, I think SBF get indicted because the main reason FTX went under was because SBF concocted a scheme to siphon funds out of FTX in exchange for worthless tokens so he could basically gamble with those funds at Alameda Research, his hedge fund.
99% of his contributions to Democrats or Democrat aligned PACs. When you say he gave to both sides of the aisle, you try to make it sound like a 50/50 split. It was more like 99/1 and the 1% went mostly to centrist candidates or weaker candidates in primaries that they thought the Democrat could defeat. Of the $62,523,195.90 that I could trace, he, his family members and fellow board members, almost all of it went to Dems.
PROTECT OUR FUTURE PAC $28,000,000.00 FF PAC $ 11,240,000.00 HOUSE MAJORITY PAC $ 6,000,000.00 SMP $ 3,000,000.00 GMI PAC, INC. $ 2,350,947.30 WOMEN VOTE! $ 2,250,000.00 AMERICA UNITED $ 1,300,000.00 LGBTQ VICTORY FUND FEDERAL PAC $ 1,100,000.00 MIND THE GAP $ 1,075,000.00 DNC SERVICES CORP / DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE $ 947,700.00 VOTE TRIPLING PAC $ 700,000.00 PRIORITIES USA ACTION $ 500,000.00 DEMOCRATIC GRASSROOTS VICTORY FUND $ 400,000.00 DCCC $ 305,500.00 OPPORTUNITY FOR TOMORROW $ 300,000.00 DMFI PAC $ 250,000.00 CENTER FOR ESSENTIAL INFORMATION $ 220,000.00
Grand juries ultimately have the power to indict most white collar crimes. Grand juries also do not have to reveal publicly who they are investigating or inform the person they are investigating. They have significantly more powers than the prosecutor. It's easier to investigate while in the Grand jury stage, once they indict/arrest him, the Grand jury can't investigate any more. It's a tactical advantage for the prosecution to continue investigating through the Grand jury and nor arrest him, especially when SBF publicly says dumb things all the time.
I know he was the second highest contributor to the Democratic Party, but certainly there are Democrats that have been financially crippled by this guy and should demand his arrest. No?
Some of you seem so naive about how the world works. Like you have no real world experiences at all. It's enormously difficult to build white collar/financial crime cases. It takes a lot of time and analysis. But you can rest assured that government agencies are looking into whether any crimes were committed here, and will build a case against Bankman-Fried if there is evidence he committed crimes.
SBF played both sides of the aisle with his political contributions. He publicly gave to Dems (but supported centrist dems like Henry Cuellar over insurgent Bernie aligned leftist Jessica Cisneros) because that fit with his profile of being a do gooder with his "effective altruism" bs. But behind the scenes, he gave equal amounts to Republicans through dark money donations because his ultimate goal was to prevent crypto regulation.
As noted above, crypto does not fall under either the SEC or Commodities Future Trading Commission. At best, the FTC would have jurisdiction to the extent there was advertising or sales practices that violated the FTC Act's broad prohibitions on deceptive trade practices. But the FTC rarely makes criminal referrals. So, it is pretty much just the FBI and state criminal enforcement to find evidence of criminal fraud, embezzlement, etc. And it is not a crime to be bad at business and run a business into the ground. And to make matters more difficult, SBF ran his business from the Bahamas. So, getting a warrant to search his business and seize records would depend on cooperation from Bahamian officials. That just means things will move very slowly.
Ultimately, I think SBF get indicted because the main reason FTX went under was because SBF concocted a scheme to siphon funds out of FTX in exchange for worthless tokens so he could basically gamble with those funds at Alameda Research, his hedge fund.
99% of his contributions to Democrats or Democrat aligned PACs. When you say he gave to both sides of the aisle, you try to make it sound like a 50/50 split. It was more like 99/1 and the 1% went mostly to centrist candidates or weaker candidates in primaries that they thought the Democrat could defeat. Of the $62,523,195.90 that I could trace, he, his family members and fellow board members, almost all of it went to Dems.
PROTECT OUR FUTURE PAC $28,000,000.00 FF PAC $ 11,240,000.00 HOUSE MAJORITY PAC $ 6,000,000.00 SMP $ 3,000,000.00 GMI PAC, INC. $ 2,350,947.30 WOMEN VOTE! $ 2,250,000.00 AMERICA UNITED $ 1,300,000.00 LGBTQ VICTORY FUND FEDERAL PAC $ 1,100,000.00 MIND THE GAP $ 1,075,000.00 DNC SERVICES CORP / DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE $ 947,700.00 VOTE TRIPLING PAC $ 700,000.00 PRIORITIES USA ACTION $ 500,000.00 DEMOCRATIC GRASSROOTS VICTORY FUND $ 400,000.00 DCCC $ 305,500.00 OPPORTUNITY FOR TOMORROW $ 300,000.00 DMFI PAC $ 250,000.00 CENTER FOR ESSENTIAL INFORMATION $ 220,000.00
WTH is the difference? You want us to enumerate the donors to GOP? Reads like a demon's resume. Sorry you had to go to the trouble when nobody cares.
99% of his contributions to Democrats or Democrat aligned PACs. When you say he gave to both sides of the aisle, you try to make it sound like a 50/50 split. It was more like 99/1 and the 1% went mostly to centrist candidates or weaker candidates in primaries that they thought the Democrat could defeat. Of the $62,523,195.90 that I could trace, he, his family members and fellow board members, almost all of it went to Dems.
PROTECT OUR FUTURE PAC $28,000,000.00 FF PAC $ 11,240,000.00 HOUSE MAJORITY PAC $ 6,000,000.00 SMP $ 3,000,000.00 GMI PAC, INC. $ 2,350,947.30 WOMEN VOTE! $ 2,250,000.00 AMERICA UNITED $ 1,300,000.00 LGBTQ VICTORY FUND FEDERAL PAC $ 1,100,000.00 MIND THE GAP $ 1,075,000.00 DNC SERVICES CORP / DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE $ 947,700.00 VOTE TRIPLING PAC $ 700,000.00 PRIORITIES USA ACTION $ 500,000.00 DEMOCRATIC GRASSROOTS VICTORY FUND $ 400,000.00 DCCC $ 305,500.00 OPPORTUNITY FOR TOMORROW $ 300,000.00 DMFI PAC $ 250,000.00 CENTER FOR ESSENTIAL INFORMATION $ 220,000.00
WTH is the difference? You want us to enumerate the donors to GOP? Reads like a demon's resume. Sorry you had to go to the trouble when nobody cares.
It's public information. It's relevant because it's essentially stolen money used to buy an election (money = votes). Take a look at the elections in Georgia recently. 80% or more of Warnock's and Abrams' money came from out of state donors (primarily from NY and CA). Liberals like SBF understand that money equates to votes and if deployed strategically can buy enough senate and house seats to garner the regulations (or in the case of FTX, the lack of regulations) they want to conduct business in ways that they can control. The FAANG companies similarly try to influence and align themselves with Democrats because they want to violate your personal privacy as much as possible. It allows them to most effectively market products to you which means more money for them. In turn, they limit the information you see by manipulating their algorithms and by censoring what they deem to be misinformation (which is really information that is damaging to the candidates that they can control.
to go after and single out Sam Bankman Fried is only going to help semi-legitimize an industry (crypto) that should just flat out burn to the ground. Any crypto insider is basically a crook as the stuff just operates as a total ponzi pool of old idiots getting paid out by new idiots and produces nothing
Grand juries ultimately have the power to indict most white collar crimes. Grand juries also do not have to reveal publicly who they are investigating or inform the person they are investigating. They have significantly more powers than the prosecutor. It's easier to investigate while in the Grand jury stage, once they indict/arrest him, the Grand jury can't investigate any more. It's a tactical advantage for the prosecution to continue investigating through the Grand jury and nor arrest him, especially when SBF publicly says dumb things all the time.
What’s funny to me is that the libertarian anti govt types who were duped into betting on shtcoins during the pandemic in order to think they’re rebels and sticking it to the elites, Jerome Powell, etc. now have talking heads on Republican news channels singling out Sam Bankman-Fried like he’s responsible for all of the corruption and wrongdoing in the crypto space when really 100% of the entire crypto space is one big pile of sh*t. It’s like going after the guy who runs a lottery casino entertainment business because it’s rigged and you didn’t win the money you put in back that got sucked into the crypto black hole.
If FDIC insured banks are offering less than 1% percent return on savings during pandemic, and some dickhead DeFi website operating outside of USA jurisdiction is offering ~14-100% apy staking in stablecoins and you’re trusting of it into the black hole, it is what it is
remember all of the stadiums named after the exchanges (eg crypto arena, FTX arena, FTX sponsors, Terra Luna etc), and all the celebrities (Paris Hilton NFT, Melania Trump NFT, Stephen curry, Tom Brady, Kim Kardashian)
shame on politicians (both sides) and pseudo tech people for just believing this stuff is real money and has any future
99% of his contributions to Democrats or Democrat aligned PACs. When you say he gave to both sides of the aisle, you try to make it sound like a 50/50 split. It was more like 99/1 and the 1% went mostly to centrist candidates or weaker candidates in primaries that they thought the Democrat could defeat. Of the $62,523,195.90 that I could trace, he, his family members and fellow board members, almost all of it went to Dems.
PROTECT OUR FUTURE PAC $28,000,000.00 FF PAC $ 11,240,000.00 HOUSE MAJORITY PAC $ 6,000,000.00 SMP $ 3,000,000.00 GMI PAC, INC. $ 2,350,947.30 WOMEN VOTE! $ 2,250,000.00 AMERICA UNITED $ 1,300,000.00 LGBTQ VICTORY FUND FEDERAL PAC $ 1,100,000.00 MIND THE GAP $ 1,075,000.00 DNC SERVICES CORP / DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE $ 947,700.00 VOTE TRIPLING PAC $ 700,000.00 PRIORITIES USA ACTION $ 500,000.00 DEMOCRATIC GRASSROOTS VICTORY FUND $ 400,000.00 DCCC $ 305,500.00 OPPORTUNITY FOR TOMORROW $ 300,000.00 DMFI PAC $ 250,000.00 CENTER FOR ESSENTIAL INFORMATION $ 220,000.00
They are called "dark money" donations because they are not publicly available, genius.
“All my Republican donations were dark,” [SBF] said, referring to political donations that are not publicly disclosed. “The reason was not for regulatory reasons, it’s because reporters freak the f*$k out if you donate to Republicans. They’re all super liberal, and I didn’t want to have that fight.”
WTH is the difference? You want us to enumerate the donors to GOP? Reads like a demon's resume. Sorry you had to go to the trouble when nobody cares.
It's public information. It's relevant because it's essentially stolen money used to buy an election (money = votes). Take a look at the elections in Georgia recently. 80% or more of Warnock's and Abrams' money came from out of state donors (primarily from NY and CA). Liberals like SBF understand that money equates to votes and if deployed strategically can buy enough senate and house seats to garner the regulations (or in the case of FTX, the lack of regulations) they want to conduct business in ways that they can control. The FAANG companies similarly try to influence and align themselves with Democrats because they want to violate your personal privacy as much as possible. It allows them to most effectively market products to you which means more money for them. In turn, they limit the information you see by manipulating their algorithms and by censoring what they deem to be misinformation (which is really information that is damaging to the candidates that they can control.
Except of course if money spent does not determine the outcome.
A UF assistant professor of political science cautions that while it’s easy to see a link between winning and fundraising, correlation is not necessarily causation in the political landscape.
It's public information. It's relevant because it's essentially stolen money used to buy an election (money = votes). Take a look at the elections in Georgia recently. 80% or more of Warnock's and Abrams' money came from out of state donors (primarily from NY and CA). Liberals like SBF understand that money equates to votes and if deployed strategically can buy enough senate and house seats to garner the regulations (or in the case of FTX, the lack of regulations) they want to conduct business in ways that they can control. The FAANG companies similarly try to influence and align themselves with Democrats because they want to violate your personal privacy as much as possible. It allows them to most effectively market products to you which means more money for them. In turn, they limit the information you see by manipulating their algorithms and by censoring what they deem to be misinformation (which is really information that is damaging to the candidates that they can control.
Except of course if money spent does not determine the outcome.
