the son of 2 tax experts that have helped draft tax legislation, is insinuating that he doesn't know the basics of what makes his actions fraud, and how he wants to distance himself from Alameda, even though he is a 90% owner, just sounds fishy
I don't doubt it, just curious what the evidence is.
I'm no SBF apologist, but this is about the silliest argument you could make. What does what his parents did have anything to do with anything? I don't know anything about my parents' field of expertise.
He's not dumb, everyone is just taking the bait.