3 Likes
he is being charged with money laundering
- It was a part and an object of the conspiracy that SAMUEL BANKMAN-FRIED, a/k/a “SBF,” the defendant, and others known and unknown, in an offense in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction, to wit, one or more monetary transfers, represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, would and did conduct and attempt to conduct such a financial transaction, which in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, to wit, the wire fraud alleged in Count Two of this Indictment, knowing that the transaction was designed in whole and in part to conceal and disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, and the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a) (1) (B) (i) .
2 Likes
I had that chat with an asset manager in 2019. “Look, 1% a day!” he said, pointing to the returns from the new DeFi he’d supported. “Yes, but it’s all money laundering for the drug trade”, I replied. “But… 1% a day!”. “Yes, drug trafficking and money laundering can be wildly profitable. Congratulations on getting a cut, I guess. I’ll pass, thanks.”
9 Likes
4 Likes
At least there’s one way to take down that botnet!
2 Likes
His lawyer probably called him up and started to scream and swear at him after this
6 Likes
Even if they didn’t knowingly participate in the alleged scheme, celebrity promoters may be on the hook for damages if it’s found that the exchange sold unregistered securities. The so-called “blue sky” law — enacted by various states to protect consumers from securities fraud — that the suit is claiming a violation of is the vehicle that allowed courts to claw back money from investors who profited off of Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme even though they weren’t aware of the fraud.
This gives Ponzi schemes a bad name.
9 Likes
I really feel like he’s the one celebrity who should be given a pass for his involvement with a crypto commercial since he was explicitly saying that he didn’t think it was a good idea. If some crypto group offered to pay me to say I thought it was a bad idea I think I could take the money in good conscience since I honestly do believe it’s a bad idea and am willing to stand by that.
6 Likes
It’s all about looking for the deepest pockets. Hopefully they look at Kevin O’Leary closely.
2 Likes
I think a judge or jury could decide that his likeness was being used, with his permission, to promote FTX, therefore he should be held liable. If you look at the long version of the commercial, his character makes repeated bad calls about things that turn out to be game changers, like the wheel, which is clearly intended to make you think underestimating FTX’s future value would be a bad decision. It’d certainly be a novel defense though.
3 Likes
4 Likes
4 Likes
https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1604836175478398976
Activision announced Alegre’s departure last week, saying the executive’s tenure would end when his contract expires next year on March 31. Alegre joined Activision in April 2020 after a 16-year career at Google.
Alegre is moving from an embattled company to an embattled sector. Activision is working on reshaping its corporate culture following a 2021 sexual misconduct scandal, and is awaiting the outcome of a pending $69 billion acquisition by Microsoft Corp. — which is being challenged by the Federal Trade Commission.
In addition to creating the popular Bored Ape Yacht Club NFT collection, Yuga Labs is also working on a metaverse project, in which land sales have drawn hundreds of millions dollars worth of cryptocurrency.
Still, the company has not been free of controversy — including an investigation by the US Securities and Exchange Commission for whether its digital-asset sales violated federal law. It is also the subject of an investor lawsuit over celebrity promotion of its NFTs.
4 Likes
IIRC he was playing a naysayer character through history who was always wrong. I already thought that he would use this excuse when shit started happening but that’s the celeb endorsement version of Schrödinger’s Nazi online.
ETA @suavefucker put it better than me. The suave fucker. I owe him a sparkling glass of financial fraud and vapourware.
2 Likes
However, by that measure wouldn’t social media companies then be liable for posts over which they have knowingly placed their logo, to which they have driven traffic, and from which they have profited by advertising?
Imagine what chaos might then ensue were such a principle upheld! 
/s, and yet, at the same time /s
I think that’s conflating a couple of unrelated issues. Social media companies like Twitter and Facebook have generally used this law to shield themselves from liability from users’ posts:
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:47%20section:230%20edition:prelim)
With FTX, the issue will come down to whether they were in the business of selling unregistered securities. If the court says they were, then the celebrity can be held liable for not disclosing the amount and nature of compensation they received for promoting the security, regardless of the celebrity’s awareness of whether FTX was engaged in fraud.
My point earlier was more about it not being likely that Larry David can claim he wasn’t really promoting FTX because he was clearly saying he thinks it’s a scam or bad investment in the commercial. I don’t see a judge buying that argument, and so I think he’d be on the hook if the court determined he was indeed promoting a security without having provided the right disclosures.
3 Likes
Heh. Good luck with that, especially the dark money contributions to Republicans.
5 Likes
There’s no way that his parents legitimately made $250M as college professors, and it’s clear that SBF’s net worth is less than nothing unless he’s got tons of stolen cash hidden away, so it’s kinda disappointing that they’re letting him post bail with what are clearly ill-gotten funds.
4 Likes
