FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried allegedly cashes out US$684,000 on-chain data show | Hacker News Reader

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried allegedly cashes out US$684,000 on-chain data show

finance.yahoo.com

38 pointspaulpauper36 comments

We don't know who cashed out. But we do know the judge did not restrict SBF from computer / internet access as a condition of his remarkably generous bail. Why the special treatment for bail conditions of this internet/computer based crime?

My tongue-in-cheek theory at the time was that it would allow him to do things that would help the prosecution.

This isn’t really “special treatment” so much as it’s “how federal bail works”. For a breakdown: https://www.serioustrouble.show/p/how-did-sam-bankman-fried-...

Internet and computer access are "how federal bail works" as bail condition for serious internet and computer based crime?

He didn't commit a computer based crime. We don't know yet that the wallet wasn't seized by authorities. It's super suspicious, and if he withdrew the money the hammer will come down on him, but we shouldn't jump to conclusions.

This is a financial crimes right?

He is being charged with conspiracy, securities fraud, and money laundering. Those are financial crimes. They are only "computer-based" in the sense that cryptocurrency is coded as "tech" and he ran a website. This is in contrast to something like malicious exploitation of computer systems and being charged under the CFAA.

... the crime revolved around use of computers and incentivizing people to fund and use his FTX computer based "exchange." It seems like a hard stretch to not consider it computer based.

Any financial crime in the past 20-30 years is computer based according to that definition.

So is every fraudster since like 2010 a "computer criminal?" People are usually restricted from using a computer because they're alleged to be hackers, eg, they're using a computer to break the law, not conducting business over a computer that happens to be fraudulent. He was already forbidden to do the thing he may have done. If he did, things are going to go very poorly for him. Again, from where I'm standing, it's just as likely that he gave the wallet up to prosecutors, perhaps as part of a plea deal. It's entirely possible he's attempting to make off with it, but I don't see any reason to jump to that conclusion without additional evidence.

ETA: The no KYC exchange is certainly a strong indication it wasn't prosecutors. Perhaps he's been hacked, but that wouldn't be my first hypothesis. Seems like extraordinarily poor judgment, but hey, that's kind of his deal I guess.

Or I guess the explanation we're all ignoring is; the court did approve this. Possibly, as someone pointed out elsewhere in the thread, to pay his legal fees.

Sidestepping for a second that he wasn’t charged with internet or computer based crimes, “yes”.

Good to know the alleged crime wasn't centered around FTX, a computer-based "exchange" and internet website.

The list of crimes he’s been indicted for is public. It does not include computer crimes.

There could be conditions on federal bail like “do not use a computer.” Etc etc

It seems he got a sweetheart deal.

There are conditions on his bail, like a ban on unapproved financial transfers over $1000.

There’s no evidence that he got a sweetheart deal; federal bail starts from the assumption that people can be released pending trial, and adds the minimum conditions on top of that based on public safety and ensuring they show up.

> There could be conditions on federal bail like “do not use a computer.” Etc etc

There were significant non-financial conditions on SBF’s bail.

> It seems he got a sweetheart deal.

The only way that’s even remotely justifiable as a description is in the ratio of security to the bail amount (the penalty for which he and his sureties become liable should he violate the bail requirements), but that is just as aptly described as him getting an extraordinarily high bail amount.

His bail terms specifically restrict him from doing transactions larger than $1,000 without government approval, so he is actually restricted from doing this. Presumably his supervisors are investigating. I think a more reasonable explanation is that this is part of some consolidation of funds associated with FTX as part of the bankruptcy.

Would be funny if this landed him in detention. Then again, I'm not sure if it is true. And if there is any justice in this world.

Supposing he breached the terms, would he lose the bond including his parents’ house?

Bail is supposed to motivate you to show up in court, or have whoever paid the bail drag you there, despite the potentially unpleasant consequences that await. Forfeiting it for other reasons would seem like a bad idea - if the money is gone either way, what's the motivation to stick around?

But, if you violate the terms of your bail, you can end up back in custody.

Consolidation by sending crypto to "a no KYC exchange based in the Seychelles"?

Well what's the other explanation, that he'll cut his GPS monitor off, stowaway on a ship bound for Africa, and take the money out as gold or something? Knowing that this means his parents will lose their house? For a few hundred thousand dollars?

I agree it's suspicious though! I hope it's thoroughly investigated and his bail revoked if he is in violation.

If he is going to jail he will need some cash. Do you even need a reason to stash some cash for the future?

The other explanation would more likely be paying lawyers. The fact that one has money from thin air for lawyers can not be challenged in court.

He isn't exactly a luminary when it comes to making well thought out decisions or appropriately evaluating risk. I don't think the fact that this seems like a dumb decision is a strong argument that he didn't do it.

"His bail terms specifically restrict him from doing transctions larger than $1,000 without government approval, so he is actually restricted from doing this."

"EXCEPT TO PAY FOR LEGAL COSTS AND FEES"

https://ia804708.us.archive.org/26/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.5...

Unless I am mistaken, that exception is narrowly exactly what it says. The only transactions over $1,000 that don’t require specific pre-approval are transactions where the money flows from SBF to his lawyers or the court to pay for legal costs and fees.

Selling something where the proceeds are intended to be used in a later transaction to pay legal costs and fees would still require pre-clearance.

Otherwise, it would be a vacuous restriction, as he could literally conduct any transaction (at least, where money flowed to him; it would be harder but not impossible to justify asset purchases) on the justification that he would eventually be using the proceeds to pay legal costs and fees.

> his remarkably generous bail

1/4 of a Billion dollars is remarkably generous? It's in the top 5 highest bails in the history of the US!

He didn't actually have to put up $250 million, or even the 10 percent that is normally required by bail bondsmen. The "remarkably generous bail" was that all he had to put up for collateral was his parents house, which is only $3 or $4 million. And considering it was bought and paid for with money he made from his crimes, that's awfully generous. Usually they don't allow you to use your illegal money for bail. Normally all illegally gained assets are seized or frozen. Maybe he was able to side step this by putting the house in his parents name? Who knows, but yes, only having to put up 2% for collateral is extremely generous...

Do you have a source for absolutely any of this?

Every single one of your claims appears to be false, but I'm willing to be convinced if you have evidence.

The bail terms are not what they seem at first sight (at least if what you see at first sight is 1/4 of a Billion dollars and assume that must be backed by collateral beforehand), though they are not trivial, either:

https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2022/12/23/bankm...

Discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34108127

I checked your links, and it confirms that basically everything Megaman69 said was indeed false.

To be more specific, the claim that SBF paid for his parent's house with ill-gotten gains appears to be false (possibly a confusion over a Bahamian property), while the claim that SBF has not had to put up anything close to $250M as a condition of the bail is apparently true (it is, instead, beside the point, as explained in the links.)

I think that restricting SBF from computer access would significantly hamper his ability to work with his lawyers to mount a defense. That could lead to issues when he appeals any convictions.

Deboonked (SBF statement it was not him who did it):

https://twitter.com/SBF_FTX/status/1608908562851598336?cxt=H...

So what ? Theres like 3 or 4 cryptos with full anonimity in which he has access.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com