SBF Caught Using VPN While Awaiting Criminal Trial [pdf] | Hacker News Reader

SBF Caught Using VPN While Awaiting Criminal Trial [pdf]

ia801508.us.archive.org

141 points1vuio0pswjnm7104 comments

> Today, it came to the Government’s attention—based on data obtained through the use of a pen register on the defendant’s gmail account—that the defendant used a VPN or “Virtual Private Network” to access the internet on January 29, 2023, and February 12, 2023.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register

I mean, I knew that there was mass surveillance occurring, but to this extent... perhaps I needed a refresher on just how much warrantless data is being collected on the citizens of the United States.

The DEA has warrantless access to with no judicial oversight under "administrative subpoenas" originated by the DEA. The DEA pays AT&T to maintain employees throughout the country devoted to investigating call records through this database for the DEA. The database grows by 4 billion records per day, and presumably covers all traffic that crosses AT&T's network. Internal directives instructed participants never to reveal the project publicly.

Information that is legally collectible according to 2014 pen trap laws includes:

Phone

  * Dialed numbers
  * Received call numbers
  * The time the call was made
  * Whether the call was answered, or went to voice-mail
  * The length of each call
  * Content of SMS text messages
  * The real-time location of a cell phone to within a few meters

  * All email header information other than the subject line
  * The email addresses of the people to whom an email was sent
  * The email addresses of people whom received the email
  * The time each email is sent or received
  * The size of each email that is sent or received

Internet

  * IP address, port, and protocol used
  * The IP address of other computers on the Internet that information was exchanged with
  * Time-stamp and size information of Internet access
  * Protocol traffic analysis to obtain URL web addresses surfed on the web, emails posted or read, instant messages exchanged, and information posted onto message boards

The last one is particularly damning. Interesting that no warrant is needed for any of this.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/us/drug-agents-use-vast-p...

[2] https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013...

---

Crucially, they said, the phone data is stored by AT&T, and not by the government as in the N.S.A. program. It is queried for phone numbers of interest mainly using what are called “administrative subpoenas,” those issued not by a grand jury or a judge but by a federal agency, in this case the D.E.A.

Administrative subpoena authorities allow executive branch agencies to issue a compulsory request for documents or testimony without prior approval from a grand jury, court, or other judicial entity.

---

Planting AT&T employees and deeply embedding them within the government like that, utilizing "administrative subpoena's" that require no grand jury OR judge (just the DEA themselves) is, in my personal opinion, a breach of my 4th amendment right.

What makes you assume no warrant in this case?

The Wikipedia page on "Pen register" suggests you don't need a warrant.

The Wikipedia page talks about the history of pen registers over the last 100 years.

It's a lengthy, complicated page, and I'm not a lawyer... but I think the relevant section that describes their current use is this one, which suggests to me that you do need a warrant:

> For law enforcement agencies to get a pen register approved for surveillance, they must get a court order from a judge. According to 18 U.S.C. § 3123(a)(1), the "court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device anywhere within the United States, if the court finds that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation".

As I understood it, a court order is not a warrant. A warrant requires probable cause, a court order does not? I may be wrong.

While I agree this level of surveillance is worrying since it's probably also being applied to normal people.... SBF has been charged and has been awaiting trial domestically since Dec 30, 2022. They are, from a spectator[1] point of view, quite clearly guilty of a lot of shady stuff and it would honestly be pretty bonkers if they had access to private communication for non-privileged conversations at this point.

1. Edited as per comment below.

> peanut gallery

I didn't know this until recently -- https://www.rwjbh.org/why-rwjbarnabas-health-/ending-racism/...

I was completely unaware as well - edited.

The article the other poster linked is making a category error, an unfortunately common one, of confusing something which has classist origins or connotations with being racist.

The term "peanut gallery" originated from vaudeville theater, and comes from the fact that unruly viewers who were not happy with the performance would throw their concessions at the performers, mostly roasted peanuts as these were the cheapest concessions. The attendees of early vaudeville were primarily immigrants, who would now be considered white, but were not at the time (scottish, irish, italian, and german immigrants).

There's nothing particularly racist about the term, never has been, and still isn't as it's used in modern parlance. Whether or not it's acceptable to use phrases with classist or class-based origins in your speech and writing is an exercise I leave up to you.

psh -- pleb. :P

I did share a bad article I didn't read. I will do some more research on peanut gallery specifically. In either case, I probably still won't use it since it has this connotation to some people.

That page also claims that "picnic" has a racist origin based on lynching, despite being derived from a French word from the 1690s:

https://www.etymonline.com/word/picnic

Their entries on "long time no see" and "no can do" seem pretty spurious as well, which undermines the whole page's validity. It's a shame TBH, those are really strange unforced errors to have included.

Oops -- I did the classic google, copy/paste, no read. Looks like I picked a bad source. Sorry!

That list is a bit absurd. Very USA-centric. And completely wrong in the case of picnic (pique-nique)

I assume that they are paying special attention to his internet connection considering the extent of his fraud. While a VPN can hide your IP, your ISP can still tell when a connection is using a VPN so if the courts allow law enforcement to monitor his connection then they would know.

Now, if SBF connected through a McDonalds wifi somewhere and they somehow found out it was him using a VPN, that would be concerning because there is no way they should know that its his laptop unless they knew he was on his way there ahead of time and somehow got permission to monitor their public wifi. That feels very unlikely

The dude is under several investigations, including a criminal one. I'm pretty certain one of them mandates the monitoring of his internet use. Not that the info you provided is not disconcerting.

> one of them mandates the monitoring of his internet use.

Is that in bail conditions?

Warrants that mandate a monitor of a specific email address are not "mass surveillance".

Warrants that are granted by no grand jury, nor a judge? are these even valid warrants at this point?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_subpoena

I'm not defending SBF. The man needs to be charged and be put behind bars for the crimes committed. I'm just stating that this article was eye opening to me.

> granted by no grand jury, nor a judge?

Pen register orders require court approval [1].

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3123

An administrative subpoena under U.S. law is a subpoena issued by a federal agency without prior judicial oversight.

I didn't say a court wasn't needed; I implied that this is a Kangaroo Court

Sorry, I’m not seeing the part of the law that allows an ALJ to permit this (which makes perfect sense - title 18 is the criminal code and crimes can not be prosecuted in administrative proceedings generally). The statute seems to contemplate only district courts and state courts, neither of which are “administrative.” Where are you seeing a reference to an ALJ being able to issue one of these, particularly in a criminal case?

[1] Federal Trade Commission (FTC) - FTC v. Innovative Marketing, Inc., the court allowed the FTC to use administrative subpoenas in a criminal case involving fraudulent business practices. The court found that the information requested by the FTC was relevant to the criminal case and that the use of administrative subpoenas was an appropriate means of obtaining that information.

[2] Department of Justice (DOJ) - In United States v. Parris, the court allowed the DOJ to use an administrative subpoena to obtain information from a bank in connection with a criminal investigation. The court found that the DOJ had the authority to issue administrative subpoenas under the Bank Secrecy Act, and that the information requested was relevant to the criminal case.

[3] Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) - In the case of SEC v. Jerry T. O'Brien, the court upheld the SEC's authority to issue administrative subpoenas in connection with a criminal investigation. The court ruled that the SEC could use administrative subpoenas to obtain information that was relevant to the criminal case.

[1] https://casetext.com/case/federal-trade-commission-v-innovat...

[2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/...

[3] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/467/735.html

These cases do not say what you think they say. Please cite to the actual parts of the decision that discuss the legality of administrative subpoenas issuing for a criminal case rather than the admissibility of information provided in response to a civil subpoena to a third party or a first party in a civil case. Recall that we are talking specifically about the use of a pen register in a criminal case brought by the DOJ, not random regulatory compliance required in highly regulated industries.

The FTC case is a civil case. The DOJ case does not even mention the word subpoena as far as I can see. The SEC case is a civil case.

He's been arrested and charged, and he had been specifically ordered to not use encrypted communications methods by the court as a matter of his bail.

It makes perfect sense that they'd be monitoring his communications to ensure he was in compliance with that order.

Mass surveillance is out of control as you say, and I am a strong proponent of reigning in warrantless wiretaps and governmental overreach. However, as many people have stated, a pen register (which requires a warrant) against a specific individual suspected of a crime where there is a MASSIVE amount of evidence suggesting that the suspect is guilty has nothing to do with mass surveillance. This is targeted, narrowly scoped surveillance of a specific suspect and is precisely what law enforcement should be doing.

EO12333 permits warrantless monitoring of people operating under a government background investigation for employment. 4 million+ people are subject to mass surveillance.

Of course, anyone can not apply to work for feds to avoid this.

And bail terms for SBF seem too lenient. Restriction on all computers and phones would seem appropriate.

Keep in mind, any 3rd party record is not covered by the 4th Amendment. There is no expectation of privacy nased on 3rd Party Doctrine.

Also, there is a forensics package that can be hot loaded on just about every router out there for law enforcement purposes.

So in this case it's basically a BCC on his Gmail?

More than that it seems, pretty much Google sharing all activity logs on the account in question when told to by a court. So, no matter what you do to try and hide your trail, if you try and interact with your existing account at all LE will be informed.

Should have gone with Mullvad (not affiliated). They don't require or send emails.

I think you misunderstood what they are tracking. Google would still see him login into his gmail account from a know VPN provider IP address. And Google is the entity logging and sharing logs, not the VPN provider.

Possibly. The document doesn't say exactly how, but I was thinking of a scenario where SBF received an email from a VPN company, since email metadata can be collected under the Pen Register Act. Though what you said about Google logging IPs might be the case instead.

It's amusing that the Government calls what they're doing with Google a "pen register". They usually do that to squeeze through the small exception in the Fourth Amendment created by Smith v. Maryland.

The pen register shown in that Wikipedia article is mine. To use it, you need physical access to a phone line, probably at the central office. You put in a blank spool of paper tape, add stamp pad ink to the ink roller, and wind it up with a big brass key. When it detects a dial pulse, the clockwork mechanism starts the tape moving, and each dial pulse produces a dash on the tape. There's a mechanical idle timer which stops tape movement after a few seconds of idle time. I built a box with a phone dial to run that brass device as a demo.

That's what law enforcement had to use in the days of electromagnetic central offices. Only long distance calls were logged. Local calls were, at most, counted. That's why the Supreme Court decision refers to a pen register as an "extremely limited" device.

Fascinating.. Thank you for the history lesson. Do you happen to have video of your demo functioning that you'd be willing to share?

No, I haven't made a video. I'm not a YouTuber.

I might should make a video and upload it to the Internet Archive, for historical reference. These seem to be rare devices.

> It’s amusing that the Government calls what they’re doing with Google a “pen register”. They usually do that to squeeze through the small exception in the Fourth Amendment created by Smith v. Maryland.

Well, they do it most directly because it is a “pen register” as defined in law: …the term “pen register” means a device or process which records or decodes dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information transmitted by an instrument or facility from which a wire or electronic communication is transmitted, provided, however, that such information shall not include the contents of any communication, but such term does not include any device or process used by a provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication service for billing, or recording as an incident to billing, for communications services provided by such provider or any device or process used by a provider or customer of a wire communication service for cost accounting or other like purposes in the ordinary course of its business;… 18 U.S.C 3127.

You are correct that this statute was created to manage the process related to the exception identified in Smith v. Maryland, but I don’t think that there is a good-faith argument that it is either inconsistent with the scope of the exception or anything except a limitation on law enforcement compared to not having the statute.

Sounds like for transparency there should be another photo added to the article: the (probably ominous) currently-used “internet pen register”.

Look up "CALEA", the US law that requires telecom and internet providers to build in wiretapping. It's mostly software in routers, but there's something called a "CALEA Mediation Device", which is the interface between the network and the wiretapping agency. Here's one: [1]

[1] https://www.shoghicom.com/fixed-line-lawful-interception.php

So... let me get this straight... SBF is currently on bail... and the state and his lawyers are arguing about the exact bail terms that should apply...

Shouldn't the terms of bail be set before bail is granted?

And worse, they then asked the defence lawyers if it would be acceptable to add a 'no VPN' term...

Those defence lawyers then presumably consulted their client before agreeing to it...

So... SBF used a VPN, and was then asked "Heya, we're considering banning you from using VPN's because we can't track what you do on them, what do ya think??". And only later did a ban come into force... Giving plenty of time to use a VPN for whatever deeds he doesn't want the court to know about...

> plenty of time to use a VPN for whatever deeds he doesn't want the court to know about

This is why SBF’s counsel “represented that the defendant will not use a VPN in the interim.” Absent that representation, the government would have petitioned the court to revoke bail.

and then can just switch to tor next anyway

My understanding is that that's pretty normal, even for normal people. The prosecution asks the defense if they'll acquiesce to a particular term, and if the defense says no, the prosecution decides whether it's really worth it to push the issue.

Defendants often agree to changes like this to score some brownie points with the judge and prosecutor that they can cash in later on when they want to change bail terms, or want to fight some other change in bail terms. It carries a bit more weight when the defense says "we think X is unreasonable" if they haven't said that every time the prosecution brings something up.

> Giving plenty of time to use a VPN for whatever deeds he doesn't want the court to know about...

That's pretty much going to happen regardless. If the prosecution doesn't ask the defense, then they'd go straight to filing a motion. A copy of that motion would have to be served to the defense, and the defense would be afforded adequate time to prepare arguments against it. Practically nothing happens instantaneously in the legal world, barring egregious acts.

His lawyers are trying to create an issue where none exists, with the implicit threat of bringing up civil rights claims in motion work and at appeal, jacking up the cost to the prosecution.

This is how wealthy defendants operate: argue every little thing to death, then plant stories in the media like 'prosecutors have spent amazing high $/% of budgeted taxpayer monies on trying to prosecute one guy'.

SBF says he only has at most $100k. At this point that's probably all gone especially considering hiring daily private security squads. How can he afford all this litigation?

Presumably his rich parents want him to have a good defence.

He could be simply lying

The same way he afforded bail.

His parents used the house that he bought for them as collateral, and a few unnamed benefactors also contributed.

Looks like the court just named them today, though. Larry Kramer and Andreas Paepke, heavyweights from the Stanford clique who might be friends of his family:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/15/sam-bankman-frieds-two-bond-...

> the state and his lawyers are arguing about the exact bail terms that should apply

My understanding is his bail terms didn’t mention a VPN. The government is petitioning the court to alter the bail terms to now prohibit the use of a VPN.

Are they going to disallow HTTPS, DNS over HTTPS, and encrypted SNI too?

They have “asked to allow [SBF] only the use of a monitored Gmail account, and SMS and voice calls on a tracked phone” [1]. Basically, he’s being switched from a blacklist to a whitelist.

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/347e2d5c-b146-472d-bbd1-3793300dd...

They apparently caught him because he logged into a wiretapped gmail with a VPN. It's not difficult to segment your network such that some software does not use a VPN tunnel. On Linux, it can even be made fool-proof with network namespaces.

You can even render the default network namespace barren such that any accidentally launched software has no network of any kind.

I interpreted it differently - I'm assuming what "pen register" means in relation to GMail is that they get the metadata (i.e. who he is sending/receiving email from) and saw that he used his email to sign up for a VPN.

If true, is that actually a breach of bail conditions? How did they prove that he actually used the VPN rather than just, for the sake of argument, signing up to NordVPN to support his favourite YouTube creator?

It is not a breach of bail conditions (at least not currently). The prosecution is arguing that VPN use makes SBF more of a flight risk, and is asking the court to make the bail conditions more strict because of it.

Using an anonymization software to access a service which directly identifies you... yeah, who would have guessed this is not a good idea.

"Your honor I shared my gmail password with someone else before the bail conditions were set."

The classic "I didn't do it" defense.

a defense that gets stronger and more likely as human automation becomes more prevalent.

checking your email earlier on in history meant more as a signal than it does now when 20 devices check an account 200 times a day automatically.

(not to defend SBF, but I think a fair amount of us are checking our email a lot more often than when we actually touch a device.)

> You can even render the default network namespace barren such that any accidentally launched software has no network of any kind.

This sounds extremely appealing. Do you have any quick-start resources for this, or do we just have to read the complete documentation for Linux namespaces?

It's just a few commands using the ip tool. You can read about it here: https://www.wireguard.com/netns/

Wireguard is special in that after creating a wg0 interface you can move it to another namespace and its [encrypted] packets would be teleported into the namespace it started in. The link above has the wg0 being moved into the default/init namespace but you can move it anywhere.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34810681 has a different document. Which is the more interesting/informative? and what should the title be?

(I'm running out the door but will try to check this later)

Looks like [0] is the judge's order that SBF stop using VPN services until after Feb 24 and [1] seems to be some kind of appeal from SBF's counsel for a time extension "to make additional submissions to the Court" until Feb. 17 (apologies as I'm not familiar with what such a document would technically be called).

I'd personally argue, considering the title, that the judge's order is more relevant since I figure it would probably not exist unless SBF actually used a VPN.

[0] https://ia801508.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.5...

[1] https://ia801508.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.5...

Maybe his strategy is to be such a fucking idiot that he can pretend there is no way he could mastermind such a big scam.

That hypothesis comes up repeatedly, but I imagine it would hinge on whether or not judges would say to themselves, "he's too stupid to jail". IANAL, but I believe judgement is based on whether or not you did "it", whatever "it" might be. Then at sentencing a judge could use "stupid" as a mitigating factor. For example, "normally you'd get 20 years, but because you're stupid..."

But I can not emphasize enough that IANAL, and this is just (as with most folks, I would guess) something I pulled out of my butt. Based on what little interaction I've had with the U. S. justice system, man, I sure wouldn't let the outcome rest on the judge's view of my intelligence, though.

I believe the above post was mostly in jest but just to clarify - to qualify for any sort of lighter sentencing you'd need to demonstrate a far more impactful intellectual disability.

Idiots are everywhere in society - there are idiot billionaires, idiot crypto bros and idiots that you pass on the street everyday. Normal idiocy is not a defense - otherwise it probably would've been significantly easier for Elon Musk to back out of the acquisition of Twitter.

My (albeit limited) understanding is that if SBF's lawyers can convince the jury that he was simply very incompetent that would be better (still a crime, but a less severe one) than if he intentionally defrauded customers. Similar to the difference between murder and manslaughter.

I don't think he's actually trying to bolster his defense though, I think he's largely an idiot and used to getting away with almost anything with few/no consequences.

Yeah, playing the fool is much more likely to be an attempt to influence the jury’s view of mens rea.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/prosecution-of-sam-bankman-frie...

Additionally, a narcist can be too proud for exploiting a "I did a stupid mistake" defense.

It's remarkable to me the consequences of people telling you you're a mega-genius without you realizing they're telling you for their own benefit.

It makes perfect sense why everyone, sincere and fraudster alike, would want to promote SBF as a boy genius. It's a great marketing tool, it helps convince people who don't understand crypto to have faith in the product, and you also get someone who believes the spotlight should be on them, which is particularly useful for any fraudsters who would prefer to remain in the shadows.

Clearly SBF never questioned that praise (who would at the time?), and still is operating as though he were smarter and more special than everyone around him. The sad irony is it reveals that he's markedly less clever than most of the people he associates with. Caroline Ellison, at least from what I've seen, seems to have realized quite quickly that the smartest choice was to quickly realize she wasn't a brilliant as she had been told.

> [SBF] is operating as though he were smarter and more special than everyone around him

I mean, let's be honest among ourselves: in IT this sort of psychological profile is table stakes.

> Maybe his strategy is to be such a fucking idiot that he can pretend there is no way he could mastermind such a big scam.

It's the strategy SBF's father is using too. The current FTX CEO, the one in charge of the bankruptcy, said in front of congress that one house worth $16m was bought in the Bahamas in SBF's parents' name.

SBF's father is specialized in tax laws. And he's on video record saying: "I'm helping FTX with legal matters".

And what does SBF's father have to say about the real estate bought in its name in the Bahamas?

"We weren't aware we had real estate in our names in the Bahamas" (paraphrasing, I don't remember the exact sentence their spokeperson used)

I mean... Once it's recorded, in front of congress, that there's real estate bought with stolen money in your name in the Bahamas, there's not that much you can do...

Besides playing the complete, total and utter idiot.

At this point I'm convinced the only reason he's allowed out on bail is so that the prosecutors can run up the score on how many crimes he'll ultimately be charged with

Keep digging, Sam.

You can’t dig a bigger hole when you’re already fully fried.

Sam is about to settle the debate of whether the earths core is spinning

Revoke his bail! He has always been a major flight risk due to the possibility that he has squirreled away many millions via crypto. 250m of surety has not been provided and now due to the use of a VPN we cannot be assured he has not already made arrangements to flee and or tampered with witnesses.

> Fifth, a VPN is a more secure and covert method of accessing the dark web.

This is not accurate, unless they are considering Tor a VPN too?

I guess using a VPN before accessing Tor could make it so your local router and ISP not know but its super insecure to give a VPN all your Tor traffic, and Tor Bridges also do that.

Using a VPN is not a crime. Not only that, it's not unethical. In fact, to do many ethical things in this country, such as download scientific papers, one must often use a VPN.

I don't get what the issue is, do the bail terms prohibit one from using a VPN? if so it's a done deal but if it doesn't there's absolutely nothing wrong with him using it.

Agreed. Using a VPN is often the most ethical behavior (SciHub, for instance).

It seems to me that using customer deposits that should have been safe guarded was wrong and a crime, but it's not clear that's what happened, and there's an obvious smear campaign against him just throwing mud against the wall to see what sticks.

I'm still undecided on this one.

The state is playing whack-a-mole on somebody who's allowed internet access. It's a losing proposition, he will always find another way to technically not break the rules.

And his well connected family of high profile lawyers will get him out of any punishment

https://mobile.twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/16259299432...

We'll see. "His well connected family of high profile lawyers will get him out of any indictment" was a common opinion here leading up to his indictment.

I think this is too big. Look who signed on that bail. Best case they made some deals under the table and let SBF eat all of the shit. Worst case SBF hang himself or something similar.

The problem is not that he's "breaking the rules" (technically or not), the problem is that the government is afraid SBF will use the VPN to cash out crypto he has through a no-KYC exchange and make a run for it.

It's about bail - if you know somebody could easily obtain money without the government knowing (and is doing the thing that would enable them to do that), then they become much more of a flight risk (at least in the prosecution's eyes, and they hope the court agrees).

You're talking about the reason for the rules. I'm saying as long as he has internet access they will be playing whack-a-mole to make rules that achieve the very goal you express. I don't see any reasons why both our statements cannot exist without opposing each other.

As an aside, I would squabble that breaking the rules, or not, is a relevant problem.

Maybe he shouldn't be out on bail if he's so huge of a risk.

I think most people would agree. Unfortunately the one person who matters is the judge and the 78 year old Lewis A. Kaplan does not seem to be swayed by that argument.

Obviously... bail was initially granted by a judge who's famous for being lenient to white collar criminals, until that judge stepped aside because her husband worked for a firm which did work for FTX...

I think you're right, but I have to think that if this is something they're genuinely concerned about, then maybe he should, you know, not be given bail?

IANAL, but isn't it pretty common for people who are flight risks to not be let out on bail?

No, mostly they are concerned about him communicating with other defendants and/or victims and/or paid fall guys and pre-orchestrating his trial.

He wouldn't get very far if he tried to outsmart interpol.

There's also the possibility that the state doesn't really want to stop SBF from incriminating himself, he seems to have been doing a pretty good job so far.

This dude just cannot tell the truth even for a second.

Obviously nobody needs a VPN to watch something on a national broadcast and he's clearly up to SOMETHING that he shouldn't be under the guise of accessing his NFL game pass account.

This is continual sociopath behavior from someone who can't possibly believe that they could ever do anything wrong, and they are simply misunderstood.

It's utterly maddening.

I might feel that entitled too if I just got to fly a stolen first class ticket to my stolen mansion when I was meant to be in jail.

Then again maybe he actually is entitled and I'm the dumb one for thinking rules apply to rich people.

Stolen mansion?

He bought a house for his parents with the money from his allegedly-very-fraudulent business and is now living there. I think part of his bail money is also from a mortgage on said house.

FTX must have been doing very well for him to have bought their house in 1992, just before he was born!

The previous poster is referring to a different house in the Bahamas, which I presume is not actually where he was going.

Though the allegation could probably be made that they've all been living off stolen proceeds for a while.

When you steal $10B and can only pay back $1B, you don't get to keep the $1B you had since 1992.

He needs to be locked up.

Let the man watch porn.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com