It looks like a pretty clear cut case of embezzlement and fraud.
They're both crimes.
They're both crimes.
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.
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
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?)
You intensionally misconstrued the banking theft example as legitimate lending to make a nonexistent point
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.
According to some, supposedly cryptocurrencies was the solution to get around financial and banking regulations, and the only truth was written on the blockchain ledger. "Smart" contracts will make traditional contracts based on the legal system obsolete. At least for those cases, it can be argued that those people waived their rights to recovering economic loss via the legal system by using cryptocurrencies.
That said, I don't buy it. But maybe a desperate lawyer could try to argue that...
No. What happened at the company FTX has nothing to do with blockchain and smart contracts. It could have been an online exchange for euros or dollars or Pokemon cards. Violating the ToS and stealing users' funds is a crime.
Insanity.