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.
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.