Dan B isn't a poker player, he's an instagram influencer who is most likely just laundering his father's money into legitimacy. There won't be a match.
In general, the FBI doesn't let criminals just slide when the scumbags steal a bunch of money and then launder it in the open if they have enough hard evidence to convict them.
Humans are creative; at that point money will be laundered through various overbilled (or even outright fabricated) medical procedures, paid for in cash.
We frequently don't catch murderers; this does not mean we should not investigate new methods of catching them.
But "we take every amount of money of which we can prove beyond doubt that it was illegitimately acquired" is like trying to deal with theft by forcing the thief to give back the goods when caught and nothing more.
You really think they couldnt think of anything lucrative over the last 30 years with completely new and separate money?
People that understand capital markets dont just have 1 lucrative idea their whole life.
The 2014 service providing in St Kitts and Nevis and parlaying that into Bitcoin and Ether would easily have earned them billions by now on its own. So it is impossible to assume anything.
Hm
My thoughts on that are “hostile corporate takeovers” are completely drama free “Mergers & Acquisitions” now, compared to when they were novel in the 1980s, they perturb no-one and nowadays founders do not start acquirable companies to get married to their company, they start companies to sell the shares they created at a cost basis of $0.00 for billions of dollars. So that specific money would have never had zealous prosecutors looking, and subsequent Supreme Court cases would have made the whole judgement invalid, if there was any due process path remaining for addressing old judgements. But okay, I can play along with the idea that he owes the government what is asked. Which moves me to my next point:
You dont think billions of new money could have been made over the last 30 years that had nothing to do with the 1980s M&A activity?
People that understand capital markets don't just have 1 idea lucrative their whole life.
Its odd to assume its related money, forever.
I’m not sure how that dictates the change in founder behavior. Unless you mean that it self selects for moonshot founders who don't conflate their business and passions - or founders that form businesses for exits, than the business.
Do you think if smaller companies were publicly traded more often that there would be headline grabbing poison pill discussions? Small companies getting tricked into buying up their own shares at a premium to fend off a large shareholder’s takeover bid - and people calling the large shareholder’s failed takeover a trick, theft, controversial at all?
I really just think the culture has changed and all of this has been normalized. Nobody is incorporating in irrelevant states anymore for protections against takeovers, the entire universe of eligible businesses is in Delaware now.
So many things are different in the minds of individual humans involved that none of this would be controversial.
I would guess companies now keep voting power among insiders after IPO with special share classes instead of incorporating in odd states, if they’re inclined to avoid a takeover.
When it comes to the modern day version of this sort of drama, the first thing that comes to mind is pre-exit startup founders losing control. That’s still a thing.