Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomp | Hacker News Reader

Hm... does that mean she gets away scot-free? Not sure that's fair, she seems very complicit.

I haven’t seen any evidence Alameda itself committed any crime, only that they were terrible traders and lost many billions on margin through FTX, who gave them special treatment for collateral. SBF then tried to bail them out with FTX customer funds since he owned both.

I think Ellison will get off scot free since she only controlled Alameda, and not entirely. Her crimes are probably minor and worth forgiving for her testimony. At least that’s my hot take.

She must have known where the bailout money was coming from (FTX customer funds). Yet she accepted it. That makes her appear as complicit.

I should hope so. The timing of their intimate relationship will play a big part in the entire timeline. What a hot mess.

Beyond a reasonable doubt?

From public knowledge, no, it's all speculative.

But it's quite possible that after the DOJ finishes twisting enough thumbs, they will have a stronger case against her than you or I do.

Let's assume there's no documentation or non-conspiring witnesses who can pin someone, but there are five co-conspirators. They will quickly turn on each other and spill the beans. Literally the prisoner's dilemma. All the government needs to do is threaten 20 years in prison. People will do anything including betraying friends and lovers to get that down to 5 or 10 or zero.

I would suggest that a CEO should know where any magic beans are coming from beyond a reasonable doubt. Not knowing where those magic beans are coming from is its own kind of special trouble, from a legal liability perspective.

This assumes a lot.

If Alameda executives knew that FTX customer funds were being commingled with Alameda’s then they were well aware their source of capital was from customer money they shouldn’t have been touching. It’s not just that they were given unlimited margin from FTX.

> I haven’t seen any evidence Alameda itself committed any crime

I've seen considerable evidence that the FTX empire, including Alameda, was jointly run by a narrow set of leaders, in which Caroline was #2, not a set of separate, arms length enterprises.

I'd take that bet 7 days a week and twice on Sundays.

No way Ellison is getting off scot free. I'd expect her to get a huge reduction in her sentence, but would still be shocked if she got no jail time.

It has been reported that there was a meeting that included SBF, Ellison and the other high ups at FTX where the decision was deliberately, explicitly made that Alameda would use customer funds to prop itself up. That is most definitely a crime on Ellison's part if true.

Why were they so obsessed with keeping alameda afloat? Was it because if it died there would be no market maker big enough for FTX to run smoothly?

I posted a Twitter thread about this in an early story that I can look up that was super informative with a lot of detail, but the short of it is that it was all a house of cards based on FTT. If Alameda died, it would have tanked the value of FTT, which would have in turn killed FTX, because they were assigning huge value to FTT on their balance sheet (which is, in and of itself, insane because FTT worked more like a stock of FTX itself - a company doesn't put its own stock on the asset side of the balance sheet).

Sidebar

> which is, in and of itself, insane because FTT worked more like a stock of FTX itself - a company doesn't put its own stock on the asset side of the balance sheet

Thinking about it, it makes sense. But I never did before. So where does a company’s own stock normally end up at, balance-wise?

By definition the equity of a business is its assets less its liabilities.

> But I never did before. So where does a company’s own stock normally end up at, balance-wise?

The company’s own stock is in the equity section (treasury stock – stock that the company has repurchased after it was issued is a contra equity account, since the act of purchasing reduces stockholder equity.)

On a balance sheet, assets - liabilities = shareholder equity. This calculated shareholder equity amount is known as a stock's book value, but this can of course differ from its market value: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/how-are-book-value-...

I've always been confused about this point. In the stock buyback world apparently they just vaporize the stock when it's acquired, they don't hold it on the books because if they need to issue more they can always dilute and create new shares when they need it.

Though I would disagree that FTT really functioned equivalently to ownership shares.

In addition to the FTT answers,

* FTX's success was helped a lot by the reputation of Sam and Alameda as the best of the best * Alameda bankruptcy proceedings would have unveiled some skeletons, like the unlimited borrowing of user funds (confirmed by court filing recently)

>she only controlled Alameda, and not entirely

This is most definitely a hot take.

Ellison joined Alameda Research in March 2018. She became co-CEO along with Sam Trabucco in October 2021. She became the sole CEO of Alameda Research in August 2022 after Trabucco stepped down.

Sam Trabucco - now there is a name you never hear ... yet he was CEO and left 2 months before they went bankrupt ...

Hard to believe they weren't complicit in the fraud given users were wiring money directly to Alameda's bank accounts (for deposits intended for FTX). You (Alameda) receive thousands of wires from random people, so you just decide it's OK to trade with it?

Granted they technically have no fiduciary duty to users since nobody signed a contract with them, I doubt they get off scott free.

Didn't she admit that only she, SBF and the cofounder were aware that the funds were taken from costumers to fund their illiquid investiments?

Many news outlets reported this. She participated on the crime

She doesn't even need to be aware to be accountable and prosecuted. Most regulated activities have a requirement of _means_ rather than _outcome_. i.e. She is as much in breach for not setting up the means by which she should have known, than actually knowing.

Couldn’t she just claim she believed those funds were coming from the customer margin accounts where the terms allowed that usage? That matches her public statements.

I think you grossly underestimate the amount of regulation Caroline is subject to.

At the very least she will be deemed unfit or proper, which means she will be barred from any financial activity for the years to come.

On top of that, as a MOO & RO she will be professionally and personally liable to millions in fines, and most likely jail time.

Negligence _is_ a crime, a lack of means _is_ a crime, a lack of knowledge or control are crimes as well, for any regulated person, especially at the MOO/RO level, a lack of chinese wall between investment and retail is a crime, accepting money from an unverified source is akin to money laundering for an investment firm.

Edit: MOO, ROs (responsible officers) and MICs (managers in charge) are regulated activities that should be assigned to individuals performing specific duties in an investment fund. Each regulator will have different names and variations on their duties and structure, but overall it's pretty much aligned.

It is mandatory for a regulated firm to have a specific amount and hierarchy of these regulated activities, and each one of them comes with a set of duties.

These activities are the main vector by which regulators enforce and control individual managers.

MOO is often assigned to the CEO. ROs are often the key investment officers, and MICs are often the key tech & operation officers.

Edit2: Hedge funds are no less regulated than any other investment firm. You are mixing "prop shops"/"family offices" and hedge funds.

Alameda was definitely an asset manager as it received external funds and was selling (debt) securities.

What’s MOO & RO?

She was in charge a hedge fund. Hedge funds are allowed to trade badly and lose money. It happens all the time. There is a VERY high bar for negligence. Alameda Research was also located in the Bahamas. Did Alameda even have outside investors? It was basically SBF's family office. Caroline isn't likely to be liable for much unless she knowingly conspired to commit crimes.

If they traded in dollars it's probably already enough.

Hedge funds are not exempt from having to know where their money is coming from. A hedge fund that works knowingly using drug money will have people go to jail. A hedge fund that doesn't do any amount of KYC will have people go to jail.

Hedge funds are not magic places where you can say teehee i just used money I found

My understanding is that she was the CEO of Alameda and received a loan from FTX based on garbage collateral. That’s not a crime? SBF knew the collateral was junk, so it’s not misrepresentation. Was she also an officer of FTX? A good chunk of those customer funds were from margin accounts that could be loaned out, so it may be hard to prove she knew SBF was dipping into the forbidden cookie jar, especially when there were no real FTX financials and it all seemed to be in SBF’s head.

I’m not saying she’s fully innocent, maybe there’s some incriminating text messages or something, but from the public information so far it doesn’t seem cut and dry to convict her of a serious crime.

There are very strict rules for any regulated firm about the provenance of the funds, ultimate beneficiaries, client-assumed risk, KYC, etc.

These are not only for customer protection, but anti money laundering as well.

Small regulators often overlook the client risk part so as to attract foreign money (that's why most of these regulators will be OK with little to no restriction of derivatives). The anti money laundering part though is very important for these small regulators as they could be fined internationally and don't want the bad publicity.

You cannot just "accept money and trust its from a legitimate source".

Some of those funds were legitimate though? A $1B loan would have been fine, probably a fair bit more. How would she know where that line was?

> I haven’t seen any evidence Alameda itself committed any crime

Well if you look at what the mainstream media are saying, the very same mainstream media who were presenting SBF as the second coming of the Christ on their front cover, you're not looking very much.

For a start it's proven that some people who wanted to send hefty sum of money to FTX had to wire it to Alameda to dodge controls. That's wire fraud.

Then it's clear that Alameda manipulated the market and were the ones behind the pump and dumping of several shitcoins. Including several shitcoins of SBF's creation.

But really... People who actually called SBF for the ponzi boy and FTX and Alameda for the complete ponzis they were, months or even years before they failed, have lots of evidence that Alameda was part of a bigger criminal operation, before FTX even existed.

If you really believe it's a coincidence the top lawyers at FTX and Bitfinex happened to be colleague at a company caught in an online poker cheating scandal I've got a bridge to sell you.

From the very start even just the naming of Alameda as "Alameda Research" was part of the con (SBF says on video he added "research" to dodge banking restrictions more easily).

The goal of Alameda Research was, from day one, to engage in criminal activities.

This entire "leveraged trade gone wrong" is lies, lies and more lies, relayed by certain media (once again: the same who were presenting SBF as an altruistic genius that was going to save the world).

Now maybe that Alameda also fucked up trades but I'm pretty sure that a lot of the missing billions mysteriously ended up at the hands of those behind the iFined/tether/Bitfinex/Deltec cartel.

Funnily enough this may make tether a bit more backed now.

One of the latest development btw is that one of the shareholder of Bitfinex is a now convicted money launderer (China just arrested sixty people in relation with chinese mafia money laundering through stashes of cash that found their way to Hong Kong and then were exchanged for USDT: $1.7 bn at least).

FTX / Alameda are one and the same and it's highly likely they were just a front for tether, with SBF as the useful idiot.

Some are going to say: "there's no evidence" but this entire thing stinks.

And nobody will convince me that Alameda didn't commit any crime.

Alameda, just like Moonstone bank (bought by SBF from Deltec) and the tens if not hundreds of companies SBF had, were part of a criminal operation.

She is highly intelligent but not street smart it seems - one does not win maths prizes for being stupid - just think she was either in over her head and was controlled by SBF and his cult to do rather dodgy stuff.

Did she get any special loans or other gifts from FTX like SBF's parents got a free condo in the Bahamas ???.

Depends on what deal she was offered and what she agreed to. If the feds already had a bunch of evidence against her (or believed they soon would), they may have offered a plea deal (less-serious charges, shorter sentence). If they had nothing, but knew she'd have a lot of dirt, they may have offered her immunity. I'm sure the specifics of the deal (if any) will come to light soon enough.

Wasn’t she only CEO for the last couple of months? The previous CEO seems to have completely dodged any scrutiny in all of this.

Caroline and Sam Trabucco were co-CEOs. He too will face the full scrutiny of the DOJ.

Apparently the "citizen journalists" who have been ahead of hte story and breaking it minute by minute are not so worried about him.

Cooperating with investigators is a good thing, and we should (to an extent) reward it.

Everybody can agree that some bargains are appropriate and others are not, so what people are going to discuss is the dividing line and particular deals.

I'm sure SBF has plenty of dirt on her as well, and he'll start talking much sooner than anticipated. She will go to jail, definitely.

Depends how much they needed her cooperation, which will determine how much of a deal she got, if any.

If they wanted her cooperation, but didn't absolutely need it, they may have struck a cooperation deal in which she still sees some prison time, but a lot less than she would have after a full prosecution.

My gut says that because he was so sloppy in implicating himself, that DOJ may not have strictly needed her, and so total immunity for her is unlikely.

There is zero chance she was offered a deal. She is cooperating voluntarily in hopes of leniency. Deals screw her credibility on the stand. She will negotiate a deal when all the cases are over.

This is not correct. Plenty of would-be defendants take deals to testify. Negotiating a deal after you testify is a ridiculous idea and if it has ever happened once, I would love to hear the story.

She is getting the leniency from the sentencing reform act of 1984 which is predicated on cooperation. No way prosecutors have given her a damn thing. Yes, many cases use snitches because that is the only way to win the case, but it is fraught with peril because of the obvious incentive to lie. Prosecutors avoid deals, and sentencing guidelines already provide for leniency for cooperation. When it is all over, they may, at their own discretion, decide not to pursue charges against her.

Out of perhaps an over abundance of curiosity, what would be your take on, say, Massachusetts Rules of Evidence Section 1104? What sorts of things do you think Massachusetts would promise a witness?

They don’t make specific promises except as a last resort because of things like 1104. I know a specific example of the feds losing a case because they granted immunity to get someone to fly to the US to testify. The witness completely blew the prosecution’s case. A federal prosecutor losing is quite the stain on their reputation. Immunity deals are the fastest way to blow a case.

The witness is supposed to say they cooperated because the law provides lighter sentences for those who cooperate voluntarily.

I think a more reasonable interpretation is “they make specific promises so frequently that there had to be a rule enacted to deal with it. I agree that you know about one case where a cooperation witness with immunity caused a problem. As to your initial claims that there is “zero chance she was offered a deal” or that any cooperation must be voluntary, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

IANAL so please correct me but here’s how I understand it: there are three levels of cooperation.

The informal one is basically just telling (some of) the truth during interrogation and agreeing to testify, where her lawyer gets to enter “she cooperated” as evidence during sentencing, but she might still get off scott free, or a judge might ignore the cooperation entirely if she’s found guilty. If SBF pleas guilty anyway, this cooperation is pretty much useless but carries the most credibility.

She can cooperate as part of a guilty plea [1] in which case the prosecutor provides the judge with a sentencing recommendation. The judge can still sentence her within the guidelines at his discretion, though usually the plea deal is on a smaller set of charges than the indictment so its a net win regardless and brings double jeopardy into play since it counts as a conviction.

The last kind is total immunity which sounds nice in theory but is more dangerous for both sides. She’d have to spill all of the beans on everything within the bounds of her immunity which will be broad. If she is ever caught in a lie or a deliberate omission, the immunity deal flies out the window and everything she said as part of the deal can be used against her at trial. Waiving one’s 5th amendment rights is usually a stipulation of immunity agreements - total honesty or guaranteed prison time.

It remains to be seen how much she is cooperating.

Edit: [1] turns out the DoJ has several different types of plea agreements and even a handy guide: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/basic-gu...

Well typically turning State's Witness is rewarded with immunity.

First one to flip usually wins.

He is a much bigger "prize" for the prosecution. She had low profile and not all that well known to the electorate. Plus, prosecuting her may not even look all that good, for identity politics reasons. If she cooperated first, there is a good chance of immunity or very low sentence.

Yep. And he lives in a $40M penthouse apartment overlooking the ocean. That is sure to get people riled up (a jury - if it every goes to trial).

> Plus, prosecuting her may not even look all that good, for identity politics reasons.

Strongly disagree with this. Look at how they threw the book at Elizabeth Holmes (vs, say, Adam Neumann, or any other male founder from the last decade plus). If anything women have been getting it harder.

Adam Neumann did not even commit a crime. The only "crime" he committed was being such a great salesperson to VCs and getting a ridiculous valuation from them. This comparison is ridiculous.

> Strongly disagree with this. Look at how they threw the book at Elizabeth Holmes (vs, say, Adam Neumann, or any other male founder from the last decade plus).

There are plenty of male founders who got popped for fraud. Trevor Milton (of Nikola infamy) is an easy one that comes to mind.

Neumann was never accused of a crime.

Jeff Skilling (Enron) served 12 years.

Ken Lay (Enron) died before sentencing, but was facing up to 45 years.

Bernard Ebbers (Worldcom) served 13 years.

IIRC Adam Neumann’s infraction was owning many of the properties leased to WeWork for above market prices. IANAL but that’s not a crime as long as he was upfront with investors about it, even if they never bothered to read that page of due diligence.

>vs, say, Adam Neumann

I can't think of a reason offhand to compare her to Neumann and not Sunny Balwani.

Can you explain further?

Neumann scammed chump investors out of a bunch of money in ways that were legal, but would have been illegal at a publicly traded company.

For example, selling some of his wework shares, buying office buildings, then leasing the buildings back to wework at above-market rates. Registering the 'We' trademark for himself then selling it to wework. That would be illegal due to being a conflict of interest, were the company publicly traded - but it wasn't.

(There was also drug use and sexual assault claims)

...aaaand? Were you going to compare him to the other two?

What an awful take. Holmes' (male) co-founder got a longer sentence than she did, just for a start.

2nd in command is a great position to be in when defecting to the government, but probably not scot-free. Expect a year or two in jail vs 3-5 for SBF.

Nah, she is connected and willing to cooperate. No jail time for sure.

she isn’t listed as owing money to FTX like many of the other executives so she’s in a better position to cooperate than the others

>...isn’t listed as owing money to FTX

from: https://news.bitcoin.com/document-claims-alameda-ceo-carolin...

"...Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison’s personal account was in the hole by $1.31 billion in May 2022."

She is not personally named as owning money in the FTX bankruptcy documents. Other executives had taken out 8-9 figure loans.

I don’t think this is being reported correctly - it’s not her personal account most likely Alameda.

I'm curious how you arrived at the conclusion she gets away "scot-free".

93% of prisoners are men[1], so it's pretty common that women do not face justice.

[1] https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gende...

Would need to have more information before coming to such a conclusion, such as the proportion of crimes committed by men vs women, the types of crimes committed by men vs women, etc.

Same when comparing racial disparity in crime/prison.

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) does a pretty good job. It compiles the stats through interviewing victims of crime, so they aren't coming from enforcement branches.

Aren't there lots of terrible crimes without a victim? Like smoking or growing plants, or owning an NFA restricted firearm item? So looking at victims may not tell the whole picture.

Justice is what happens when people are held accountable for the wrong things they've done.

Nothing about justice requires that punishment be meted out in strict accordance with the demographic breakdown of a population except insofar as wrong things are done in strict accordance with the same demographic categories.

Maybe you're assuming that to be the case, but I don't think you'll find any evidence to support such a claim.

Exactly. If black people disproportionately are in prison, maybe that's just justice.

uh...

This is called "affirming the consequent."

Exactly. If men are disproportionately in prison, maybe that isn't justice.

Why is it ok for 'spaulding to just shut down the argument as "nothing about justice requires that punishment be meted out in strict accordance with demographic breakdown" but suddenly a fallacy when I insert an actual demographic? I knew it would make people upset because well if we're talking about men then no defense is necessary, no woodruffw to the rescue with "affirming the consequent", but if black people cue up the folks with the torches.

Nobody has torches out. I'm just pointing out that 'spaulding has made a strictly correct observation. You could have responded to it with an equally valid and interesting observation ("we have ample social evidence that criminalization is gendered"), but you chose to be inflammatory instead.

It's not justice, but the same phenomenon. If certain group has a larger tendency to commit crimes, and you have limited time and resource to look for crimes, it's overall more effective (arrest more people and perhaps prevent more crime) to disproportionately target that certain group. Men and blacks do in fact proportionally commit more crime than women and other races, but less so than the rate of incarceration suggests. There are only two ways to prevent this: being super effective and checking everything (police state), or being less effective and arrest less criminals for taking extra steps to arrest in just proportion (there are legit reasons to want this, e.g. it'd be terrible for society if for example white women had the sensation they could commit any crime without punishment. But to what degree is that extra effort worth it?).

Or maybe it's not? It completely depends on your prior. I, for one, am not entirely convinced that racism disappeared without a trace in 1964.

Justice should be blind in terms of punishment. Easy show systemic racism by looking at the number of African Americans in jail for drug offenses for drug when comparing across races. Drug use by race is relatively consistent in terms of percentage. I would consider that a big problem with our justice system.

My understanding is those "usage rates" are uniform only if we look at "used in last year", but ignore "used in last week" metrics where they diverge (according to Bureau of Justice Statistics). SSC did a pretty good deep dive on race and the criminal justice system, that covers this and other things such as underreporting, below:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-...

1) What's the have to do with the conversation?

2) That's not how logic works. Correlation does not equate to causation.

I agree that correlation doesn't equal causation, I pointed it out because it's the exact same argument used to decry racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Either the argument is valid, or it isn't. We can't pick and choose when it fits our beliefs.

You're still oversimplifying things. A large reason people get confused between correlation and causation[0] but rather things that are correlated and connected with a confounder. The problem here is oversimplifying the model. You have to ask a lot more whys. It is fact that men are arrested more than women and fact that black men are arrested more often, as a percentage, than white men. But it is naive to assume that the "man" variable or the "black" variable are causal variables. In fact they are confounders.

The argument isn't either "valid or not" in a general sense. The argument needs more nuance and if that's your concern, ask for it and point out where it is lacking. Demand better comments instead of trying a quick mic drop.

[0] Most people aren't confused with spurious correlations like: US technology funding vs number of hangings. (99.8% correlated) http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

For what it's worth, I agree with you. But if you've ever discussed racial disparities in anything you know that asking for more information that might not fit neatly with the established narrative, is likely to just get you called a Nazi or something.

I think you're exaggerating this. No one is going to call you a Nazi for saying that Black men have a lower ability to climb the socioeconomic ladder through traditional legal means and thus have a propensity to seek out other non-legal means. Many seeking social justice will stand by that actually. But you will get called a Nazi if you suggest that the reason for them doing this is because they are black (note: capitalization is subtle but important). That is eugenics and has been disproved.

See how the causal factors in these arguments are different? The former is a demonstration of an unfair set of opportunities that disproportionately affects a certain subset of humans while the latter says that the arrests are destined because of genetic makeup. We know one is true and the other is false.

If you're making arguments akin to the former and getting called a Nazi, get off Twitter and touch some grass. Talk to some real people. Specifically people of color. But maybe listen first before you open your mouth.

If you use that argument to explain away property crime differences, maybe. But that doesn't hold for violent crime rate disparities, which is typically where these conversations go off the rails.

Maybe if that is happening then the problem is you're talking about apples when others are talking about oranges. They're both round fruits and share a lot of similarities so it is easy to get the two confused. Especially with human language where we have a lot of priors that fill in the tremendous gaps in our compressed language. It is even more problematic with hot topics, which is why I suggested listening first. If there is a failure to communicate then maybe change the means in which you are communicating. This should also prod you to listen better. Remember that in communicating you're trying to express this complex idea with a limited vocabulary and time. The listener then has to decompress and interpret this information based on what you said (not what you are thinking) combined with their prior experiences (including the similarity of your argument to arguments made by others. Possibly others you don't wish to associate who are instead dog whistling or using malinformation). So do your best to communicate well and specifically with your target audience but also ensure that you are doing your best to interpret the intended message of those you are communicating with. Not only will the latter help make a more productive conversation, but demonstrating this helps encourage others to do the same in return. Not to say that we aren't human and won't make quick quips. But if we can re-navigate these situations, they do tend to turn out better. I think this conversation between us is a good demonstration of that.

You assume good intentions with these people, that is not what has been on display for the last few years. A general rule of thumb is that anybody engaged in identity politics is a horrible human being, and discussion with them is generally an exercise in futility.

These are people who literally start every discussion with the idea that people of different races should be treated differently based on the color of their skin. So I suspect they're projecting a bit, since that is precisely Nazi ideology cloaked in a different skin (literally).

> You assume good intentions with these people

Yes, because if we don't, then it does lead to what's been on display (which is also a selection bias). Start with the assumption of good intentions, but you don't have to keep that after they play their hand.

> A general rule of thumb is that anybody engaged in identity politics is a horrible human being, and discussion with them is generally an exercise in futility.

I found the problem. If you treat everyone you meet like an asshole or terrible person then it is no wonder they respond that way. You can't expect anyone to be nice to you if you are being a dick to them. People can tell what you think of them. You probably aren't as good of a bluff as you think you are.

Well there is an easy way to test this theory of yours, by answering a question. Do you think we should treat people differently based on the color of their skin?

I happen to think we should treat everyone the same regardless of skin color. Do you?

I'm not taking the bait. I just want you to know that the reason you're having problems with people is because you're arrogant. Tone it down if you want to have the conversations you want to have because you're never going to get there the way you're going about it. That's the end of this conversation for me. Sorry.

Most crime is committed by men too

Most crime that we have records for to use for studies is committed by men you mean. Who is to say how much crime by women goes unreported and uninvestigated, and therefore has no presence in our statistics.

Yeah but it's not as if there is this huge epidemic of underreported or uninvestigated crimes committed by women. This doesn't account for the statistical difference.

This same argument is used to dispute the racial disparities in the justice system.

Is the explanation right in this case but wrong in that. Right in both? Wrong in both?

As more and more women break the glass ceiling, we’ll see a higher percentage of white collar crimes being committed by women

Reply on news.ycombinator.com