Legally I think they are better going after the embezzlement angle instead of fraud.
It is a fact that FTX funds were used to buy a house that his parents had in their name and that they used. SBF can say that the house purchase was an "accident" but most jurors understand that you don't just "accidently" have a house in your name that you live in.
I am not sure if it is embezzlement because the shareholders gave him carte blanche. They had no directors (it was only SBF and one of his cronies), they had no-one overseeing anything, all of the transactions were approved by the company (btw, any transfers outside the company can now be clawed back in bankruptcy anyway).
I think the stuff going on with Alameda is a bit more spicy because he, and others, made several very explicit lies about that relationship. The stuff with the houses was unbelievable but the finger should really point at the shareholders who allowed it to happen.
> Legally I think they are better going after the embezzlement angle instead of fraud.
Legally, they aren’t mutually exclusive, and a part of what is probably making the criminal side take longer than people like is investigating the wide array of crimes that appear to have been committed and deciding how best to charge them.
Maybe a prosecutor/IRS will offer his parents a deferred prosecution deal to spill the info about that house in their name. Either way the parents may lose their lawyering bar cards.
At the very best it's gross negligence on a scale never before seen.
When does gross negligence become fraud? Does it require intent? Do they need to show intent? Basically show he knew what he was doing even though he plays dumb?
Extending loans and perks (jets etc.) to executives is pretty standard stuff. Yeah it looks bad, especially when you're gut is telling you this guy is a crook. So SBF lived well like all executives do, that's not a smoking gun or a litmus test for fraud.
I'm sure if they can prove fraud, then this kind of stuff is icing that gets him a harsher sentence.
There's nothing wrong with offering incentives to lure top talent. It's the cost of doing business.
At the lowest level things like discount healthcare benefits and 401k matching are the simplest incentives that get paid for by the employer. The cost of doing business and attracting talent.
Microsoft was famous for having stocked break-rooms, unlimited cola and caffeine for programmers who slept in their offices. Googlers get free meals, and Mountain View campus has free rides to/from work. All paid for on company dime.
At the mid-management level you get company cars. Some of these people drive over a 1000 miles a month as part of the job, the wear and tear on their personal car is a burden. So the company offers a car as part of the compensation package. They get to use the car for personal business as well, that's a perk. Should that be taken away?
At the executive level things like company jets become a necessity, simply as a travel time saver. Time is money as they say. They can get more done during the day if they have faster travel and accommodations. I worked for a CTO who on average got around 1,000 emails a day and usually stayed up past 10pm to answer them. He says the thing people don't understand is that when he wakes up in the morning, his mail box is already full as the European division has already been running for several hours. Pressing business to address. And so spending company $$$ on things like jets and helicopters to get more productive free time from your execs is money well spent.
Some companies have formal retreats and where they send team members to "team build". As long as it can be justified, and the company is profitable, and the shareholders are OK with it, then why can't the company spend it's money as it sees fit (within limits of the law of course)?
I agree that the perks and compensation can get egregious. Also, this kind of stuff is ripe for abuse, which is why a company needs good governance. There was no governance at FTX, no corporate controls at all. Which is why the situation was so ugly.
But as far as perks goes, these are great tools to lure talent, and get the most out of them. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If FTX was profitable, and the shareholders were OK with it, there's nothing wrong with offering paid for housing as a perk (even if it is a bit unorthodox, other than at a casino). If FTX was a con all along, then it was a crime, which changes the equation significantly.
