>Why exactly is the government not seizing every asset he owns
I find it utterly strange that people respond to injustice by asking why isn't more injustice being done, you know for equity?
I find it utterly strange that people respond to injustice by asking why isn't more injustice being done, you know for equity?
There's a reason people say crimes that are punished with a fine are laws that only apply to poor people.
If he was a wealthy donor to Trump in an identical case he'd be rotting in Rikers with no hope of bail.
Take the Chevron case I mentioned in another comment. Deputizing an oil and gas law firm to criminally prosecute someone in the US for what they did in Ecuador began in the Trump administration. Biden's DoJ could intercede in the case and dismiss it. But they haven't. So there's no difference here between the two parties.
You'llsee that a lot. When it comes to any issue like this the government (including the White House, Congress and the courts up to and including the Supreme Court) will side with the wealthy most of the time.
Go back and look at any issue you might think is a partisan issue where you think someone is getting persecuted politically and really examine it through the lens of who has the money in that situation. That will determine who these institutions side with more often than not and way more than any supposed political leanings.
Posters here are merely pointing that out.
It's even worse that law enforcement gets to keep the proceeds of seizing assets where there are no charges (let alone convictions) so we've added a profit motive for what should be unlawful search and seizure. Yay capitalism.
But that is the legal doctrine we operated under.
Unlike the Amazon case, there is a mountain of evidence against SBF, the new CEO has no doubt coopearted and provided ample docuemntation, there are 2 cooperating witnesses and charges have been filed. Through ownership of Bahamanian property (and who knows what else) there is a clearly evidence trail between FTX customer assets to SBF and SBF's parents and associates. It is all quite plausibly the proceeds of crime.
Basically, SBF walked into a bank, robbed it and then used the money he stole to post his bond.
Imagine you saved $100,000 from working and spending less than you earned, all completely legitimiately and legally. Now imagine that you make another $100,000 from, say, importing and selling a few pounds of cocaine.
You might think the government may come along and seize $100,000 from you. No, they'll seize everything. It's really difficult to separate money and the government won't even try. All of that could be forfeit.
Let me give you another example: imagine you're in charge of purchasing for a company. You send out and pay invoices on that company's behalf. Imagine you skim off the top and add $1,000 in charges or increased prices or fake items to a $20,000 invoice. You send out a $21,000 invoice, keep $1,000 and then pay the company $20,000. This is fraud. Imagine you get caught. You won't be on the hook for $1,000. You may be on the hook for the full $21,000. The entire invoice is fraud at that point.
Now this may seem unfair or unreasonable. I won't argue that. I'll simply say, that's not how it works. So once SBF committed fraud, which seems to be the case, he basically has the reverse Midas touch. Everything he touches from that point becomes tainted and the government and the courts are within their rights to seize it.
If his parents accepted any proceeds of that fraud, even unknowingly, the government can start seizing their assets too. In the Nelson case I talked about originally, the government seized the bank accounts from Nelson's lawyers. Think about that.
As others have commented correctly and more pithily than I have: the issue isn't is civil asset forfeiture justified (it isn't) but why those same rules are being applied inconsistently, much to SBF's benefit as he's walking free today.