Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

barrinmw t1_j2sz8ja wrote

Over and under on him trying to claim the other two who already plead guilty are the ones who were really behind it all and he had no part in the fraud at all?

40

candafilm t1_j2t5h5n wrote

That's essentially his defense. In every interview he's done since the FTX collapse, he pushed all the blame onto Alameda Research and claiming it was a totally separate entity and he had no idea what was going on there. It doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny, but that's the story he's sticking to.

28

ButterPotatoHead t1_j2tynqs wrote

I think one of the core issues is that there were two companies, Alameda Research and FTX. SBF ran the first one for a while, then supposedly stepped down, his co-conspirators started to run it, and then he ran FTX.

Alameda had what sounds like unlimited access to FTX funds and used them to make investments, fund loans and shore up losses. This is the source of many of the serious charges.

SBF is clearly trying to distance himself from Alameda and will probably try to blame malfeasance on the co-conspirators that ran it. Meanwhile they have already pled guilty and said they did things that they knew were wrong and SBF told them to do it. So I'm guessing that will be one of the main focuses of the lawsuits, if not the only one.

10

barrinmw t1_j2tyxce wrote

Except, I believe there is evidence that he knew about the fiat account used for the entire fraud.

4

ButterPotatoHead t1_j2u0nxd wrote

Well, whether or not he knew about it or used it will definitely be asked.

For a fraud conviction though they would have to show intent, like he said that he did not know about it but then used it, or something like that. And it would have to affect customers or investors.

2