The fall guy is usually someone high up in an organization where the entire organization does something bad. In 2008, chief risk officers, CEOs, and COOs were the fall guys over the failures of their respective banks.

The fall guy is someone who "takes the fall" (ie the responsibility) for the misdeeds of someone else. You're not the fall guy if you're convicted of something when you're the person who did the thing.

This is a very weird argument you're making. They successfully prosecuted the main perpetrator of a massive and very complex fraud in spite of him being (pre collapse) the absolute golden child of the industry. That's a huge win.

Getting time for anyone else is far less important than getting guilty on all charges for the main perpetrator.

> They successfully prosecuted the main perpetrator of a massive and very complex fraud in spite of him being (pre collapse) the absolute golden child of the industry.

Not OP, but as a layperson like myself, what is the compelling proof that "complex fraud" actually happened? Last night I clicked 3 different articles--including Wikipedia's page on the trial--and it was a really long read. I should be able to read somewhere in a single paragraph, what was the main crime, and what was the best/crucial evidence for it. The Wiki page for instance began by listing a litany of alleged crimes--which for lay understanding is the wrong level of detail. I would like a clear, simple, compelling summary but it actually not that easy to find this information written concisely in a neutral article.

FTX functioned as a vault for user funds as an exchange, while Alameda, sharing common ground with FTX, was granted the privilege to borrow these user funds. Already off to a bad start because of the conflict of interest.

Alameda was also allowed to borrow far more money than other borrowers, because they were deeply in debt. Also bad.

Though this arrangement might initially evoke traditional banking practices with eg mortgages, the situation becomes even more problematic as Alameda secured their loans using tokens minted by FTX.

The easiest analogy here might be: A failing real estate mogul, who has an intimate personal relationship with a bank head, using stock shares of the bank as collateral for mortgages instead of the properties themselves—a clear conflict of interest, wrong way risk, and a shaky foundation for financial stability.

Edit: The bank in this case could play dumb and insist it had no idea that was fiscally irresponsible, which is basically what SBF argued, but at a certain level of incredulity you stop receiving the benefit of the doubt.

But that's exactly my problem--there are countless examples of banking crises the result of colossally irresponsible and negligent financial and economic decisions. Yet the government bails those out and does not call those fraud.

The issue that I have is the correct concept and the correct argument. The proof of fraud, I think, requires forensic evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt. Not the optics and my personal level of credulity.

And I say this as a Marxist leftist, so it's not like I'm any supporter of cryptocurrencies, etc. I might even argue that under capitalism, people's notions of 'responsibility', 'stability', 'fraud' etc. are already so distorted that they don't have a coherent theory of what things are crimes and what things are just morally bad, socially bad, and so on.

The situation with Alameda resembles the Enron scandal more closely than a banking crisis like that of 2008.

Portraying Alameda as a typical borrower, while concurrently implementing a code change that singularly permitted them to maintain a negative account balance, is outright fraud.

Further, it seems like what you’re arguing is that more people should be prosecuted for banking crises, not that SBF shouldn’t be charged. Those two things aren’t mutually exclusive.

Things going badly for investors is not in and of itself fraud even if it causes a crisis. That's why the hedge fund Alameda losing investors money is not by itself a fraud. FTX taking customer money and spending it is however fraud. That's just like if you put money in a bank and they just spend it that's fraud.

Fraud has a specific meaning [1] but you could think about it as being a negligent misrepresentation of some fact for unjust financial enrichment. So if I say to you I'm a billionaire[2] that's just a lie not a fraud. But if I say to you "I'm a billionaire, invest with me and I'll make you a billionaire" and I take your money and just go spend it or whatever, that's a fraud because you were relying on a fact I negligently misrepresented and you were harmed. The complexity comes because there are lots of seperate laws under which fraud is illegal. So if you lie on a loan application that's a different type of crime to if you tell someone they are buying shares in a potato farm and the potato farm doesn't exist and you just spend their money on blow instead. They're both fraud but they are different kinds of fraud.

If I honestly get your cash for an investment, make that investment and lose all your money because it just doesn't work out, that's not a fraud.

Hope that's clear. The meaning of the word fraud doesn't change from a capitalist vs a Marxist perspective. It's just "fancy lieing for financial gain" either way.

[1] Here's a US-specific summary https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraud

[2] I'm not. As far as I know at least.

The best one I saw today (can't remember the source): Suppose you gave your broker money to invest for you, and she bought herself a really nice house instead. That's basically it.

I think you want mutually incompatible things.

1)If you want to know the full facts of what he did and how the court case went you'd need to do more than read the wikipedia page.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66631291/united-states-... is the full docket of original source materials if you want to find out for yourself.

It was a complex case so there are a lot of documents etc but all the actual facts of what happened in the case are there. IF you want to read who said what, what all the documents to and from the judge were etc, go nuts.

2)If you want a simplified version, it's basically what a sibling said. FTX was an exchange. That's supposed to look after people's assets that they place in custody so they can use those assets for investments. Alameda was a hedge fund. It's supposed to use investor's assets to make investments. Instead, FTX loaned customer assets to Alameda to invest. That in and of itself is no bueno right off the bat. It's a violation of the contract with customers when they deposit and is improper use of customer funds.

Secondly they kind of spent 8bn of the customer assets. On getting celeb endorsement, private jets, parties, conferences with big-wig speakers, real estate and other stuff. That's called stealing, and is also considered a no-no.

Third there were campaign finance violations. He took customer money and improperly used various front individuals and companies to make political donations. That's not legal.

Fourth he seems to have violated money-laundering laws either by part of the third thing or in some other way.

Fifth there was probably also wire fraud because everything is wire fraud and also because they actually had a Telegram Chat channel called "wire fraud" (they say irony is dead).

That's probably not all but it's enough.

> chief risk officers, CEOs, and COOs were the fall guys over the failures of their respective banks

only two things wrong with this claim:

1. no CROs, CEOs or COOs were judicially punished in any way for the failure of their banks.

2. CROs and CEOs were clearly responsible for those failures. That's literally their whole job for which they were typically paid 7 to 9 figures annually.