But DOJ would have needed someone who had the receipts (who could also explain it all) to be able to act this quickly. So, in this case, I think it's a reasonable theory (but not the only viable one).
Maybe part of the urgency was also the planned congressional testimony.
> But DOJ would have needed someone who had the receipts (who could also explain it all) to be able to act this quickly.
Citation needed? I'm not a lawyer, but it seems plausible to me that SBF's public admissions of crimes, plus the full records of his company, are sufficient.
Where would they have gotten the full records? Or been able to know where to look in the records? Forensic accounting takes time (even if the records are as bad as alleged). To me, this suggests someone on the inside helping to build a case. Federal cases can take years to build because they are usually very thorough. Going from collapse of the company to extradition request in the course of weeks seems really fast to me from a historical perspective (but IANAL either).
But this, like most of the thread, is all speculation. We’ll find out more in due course.
It appears that many FTX/Alameda employees were in the dark as well and had huge losses. There's probably no shortage of angry employees interested in sending him to jail (and probably ensuring SBF gets blamed and not them). Add SBF bloviating endlessly on the internet and admitting crimes and you have an easy case?
> Where would they have gotten the full records? Or been able to know where to look in the records?
Bankruptcy procedings. Subpoenas. The standard ways the FBI gets records from regular companies run by people who aren't criminals and don't want to become one (the current CEO is a regular business person).
All of that takes time. Subpoenas can be fought. Bankruptcy cases take time, and I’m not sure that prosecutors would get unfettered access to bankruptcy filings (unless/until the presiding judge thought it was relevant).
But either way, these things take more time than what has passed thus far. I’m not saying that a case couldn’t have been made without an internal informant — just that it happening so quickly makes me suspect that someone (who was high up) flipped.
They can be, but they don’t have to be, and the current management doesn’t seem interested in protecting SBF or the others formerly responsible for running the FTX network of companies.
Besides there's a very extensive history of state procescutors offering deals to co-conspirators early on. Even in obvious sure things they've sided on the safest possible option.
It probably reflects the inherent risk-aversion that comes with a gov lawyer job.
A more balanced tolerance to risk is often missing from much of gov policy making. Probably has a lot to do with people who care more about highly visible and immediate prosecutions to satisfy the public > balanced long-term justice. Politics selects for that. You see the same thing happen on social media where emotions reign king.
> Besides there's a very extensive history of state procescutors offering deals to co-conspirators early on. Even in obvious sure things they've sided on the safest possible option.
I think it's often less about convenience and more about prosecutor's political antennas. Who wants to see the guy dead in jail, and who would be most upset at you if that happened.
