Comments by "Mark Armage" (@markarmage3776) on "I Accidentally Got SBF To Admit to Fraud" video.

Yeah, that's not really how it works. The terms of service indicated the following words, "will not treat as if it's the property of FTX". Fraud means intentional, what SBF did wasn't treating them as FTX property intentionally. He possibly mislabeled them all as just user's fund. Which is extreme negligence, but not really criminal conduct. Fraud means intentional, if it's not intentional, it's not fraud. No motive, no case.
7
@teagancombest6049 No, it shouldn't. Pretty clear reason. Because mismanagement is not really a crime, it's most likely incompetence. Like I said, fraud means intentional. He might have hurt you, pal. Or hurt a lot of people, that cannot change the nature of his actions. Either way, even in that murder case, it will never be as severe as actual murder. So by definition, this will always be less than fraud.
6
@teagancombest6049 That's another, lie, pal. In the scale of FTX, the money can just be a partial share exit to get new investors. A person who owns a significant amount of a dozens of billions dollar company should have a few hundreds of millions. And, no, Alameda wasn't trading with customer's fund. Alameda was a trader on the FTX platform that uses the margin features, which is totally legal. Don't join the conversation if you can't stop using your emotions to think legal terms, pal. That's now how it works. Moral here is completely subjective, some say the US imperialist international politics is morally wrong, some do not. Just talk about the law. The guy did committed some activity that is punishable to a certain extent. But what you're doing is using your emotions to exaggerate what he did. That's not cool. Keep it real, pal.
5
@teagancombest6049 Yeah, that's the bad part of the free society. People are protected when doing a lot of bad things. It's not intentional mismanagement, pal. Because nobody intended to lose that much money, it's not beneficial to anybody. This is not a fraud, or a scam, at least not intentional gambling. Certain investors into FTX that accepted the margin trading clause should have lost all of their money, the ones who didn't do that supposedly wouldn't have been harmed. But the mismanagement in between, which wasn't aimed to hurt anybody by the way, is not really a crime. Just because he impacted badly to a lot of people doesn't mean he's a criminal. No intention, no case. Assumption of criminal intent is not how things work in life.
3
That's not how you caught people. That's just mismanagement. To prove fraud, you need much more, you need specific intent of violating terms of services.
1
@Danz009 Since always, it's called incompetence. You can sue them civilly, but there's no criminal liability. 😎
1
People need to separate 2 things. SBF didn't co-mingle user's fund with Alameda's fund. In this video, he co-mingle regular user's fund with special cases user's fund. They have the same word "co-mingle", but they lead to 2 very different outcome. One co-mingle doesn't equal to another.
1