Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawayapples | Hacker News Reader

What claim does the federal government have to these funds?

And how is this seizure even being contemplated before a trial and conviction? Does the Fourth Amendment not apply to him just because nobody likes him?

View on HN

I mean you could just read the article:

"The Justice Department said Wednesday that has moved to seize millions of shares of Robinhood, the popular stock-trading app, whose ownership is disputed by several parties, including Bankman-Fried himself, his bankrupt crypto exchange FTX and another bankrupt crypto company.

Because the competing claims, FTX filed a motion earlier this month to the Delaware bankruptcy court to keep the assets frozen until the court “can resolve the issues in a manner that is fair to all creditors of the debtors.”"

The TL; DR being the DoJ moving to seize is the start of due process.

That's still a little weird because usually personal assets are shielded from issues a company has (at least for LLCs).

As the quoted text notes, FTX claims these are it's assets and until that is resolved is asking the courts for them to be frozen.

It’s a bit different when you borrow $500M from your (now bankrupt) company to purchase the ‘personal assets’.

You are right, I mean even though FTX has declared bankruptcy and SBF admitted that either his incompetence or malice is the cause, the government surely couldn't have enough probable cause to seize these clearly unrelated assets.

> these clearly unrelated assets

Troll.

I read the comment as sarcasm but we know how well that translates in pure text.

Oh ok. I see it now.

The 4th amendment doesn’t “fully” apply to anyone anymore. Especially if the government views you as potentially guilty (TSA luggage checks, third party doctrine, various things during traffic stops), “potentially” not a U.S. citizen (e.g. at border crossings), or “potentially” not in the USA (e.g. electronic communications).

>anymore

The present and historical states aren't fundamentally any different except in people's rose tinted rear view mirrors.

Wouldn't it be great if people would just read the facts presented clearly in the referred articles, instead of making catastrophic but unfortunately baseless claims according to their alignment...

The Fourth Amendment only prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. And it does not require warrants in all cases. There have always been exceptions to the requirement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com