Link. Federal Indictment news, with a pdf copy of the indictment posted
Related. SBF in custody, held by Bahamian authorities.
The SEC page commentary on the civil action, with a pdf copy of the complaint available.
Sam BF indicted ahead of Trump could be a headline. Not that they interacted at all, just which shoe dropped first.
SBF's confederates and affiliated persons so far appear to not be named as civil law defendants nor indicted in government court cases. That is at least so, in what Crabgrass has encountered online.
BOTTOM LINE: Both an indictment and civil securities law based action exist, with the best understanding Crabgrass has is that the SEC already has filed, and the indictment will be filed tomorrow.
Apologies to earlier readers who may have accessed the erroneous earlier post.
UPDATE: The Indictment seeks forfeiture, and the bankruptcy court will be seeking clawbacks. The bottom line as to property, SBF will end up with none that has not been artifully hidden away, if there is any of that, and a personal bankruptcy is likely, beyond the business entities involved presently in bankruptcy court.
And other persons are likely to face civil SEC actions and Indictments. The Moonstone Bank situation apparently has not yet been specifically pleaded, by name, but machinery is working. The final Indictment count, the campaign finance law indictment count is of interest as to what evidence will end up in court about that thicket. And clawback dimensions of wrongful money having been infused into and already spent by politicians and political consultants will resonate for some time.
Last, SBF and colleagues had to sense the walls closing in on them. Tense times near the end, but keeping the story going as long as possible with believers still there at the end. It must have been stressful times for the perps and the victims.
People who had money and chased profit making dreams, now holding positions worth nothing, is not the best holiday news. Fool and money soon parted may be said, but it is not at all a cheerful analysis. Trusting crypto, and others are still in that troubled market.
__________UPDATE________
This item by Johnathan Turley coalesced vague thoughts kicking around in my own mind. As in why now, for what purpose would two executive branches of the federal government move in concert with one another and with Bahamian authorities to promptly ice SBF in waning minutes to shut down anticipated next-day Congressional testimony:
The Justice Department Faces Questions After Effectively Preventing Bankman-Fried from Testifying in Congress
The arrest of Sam Bankman-Fried yesterday was sudden and unexpected in light of Bankman-Fried’s plan to testify before Congress. As a criminal defense attorney, my reaction to the arrest last night remains unchanged: this is the first time that I can recall where prosecutors moved aggressively to stop a defendant from making self-incriminating statements. His testimony would have been entirely admissible and likely devastating at trial.
I previously wrote how Bankman-Fried was doing harm to his case by speaking in the media and to Congress. So why would the Justice Department move to stop the self-inflicted damage? You have a major target who was about to voluntarily testify for hours.
That is ordinarily a dream for prosecutors, but the Justice Department moved quickly to prevent that from happening. At that stage, Bankman-Fried was not charged or in custody. He was not protected by Miranda or other constitutional rules from self-incriminating statements.
Indeed, some of us had already warned that he was causing himself considerable damage in making such statements. This was a defendant with a large legal team facing possible criminal charges who seemed eager to speak about his actions and motivations. Most prosecutors would sit back, make popcorn, and watch this unfold.
The curious move led many to question whether the Biden Administration was eager to prevent questions on Bankman-Fried’s political contributions and associations. He was the second highest donor to Democratic causes in the last election cycle. His mother, a law professor at Stanford also heads a major Democratic campaign fund.
[...] The range of charges includes wire fraud, wire fraud conspiracy, securities fraud, securities fraud conspiracy, and money laundering.
Notably, the eight counts include violating campaign finance laws, a charge that could prove embarrassing for some powerful political interests.
The charges are on top of charges announced earlier Tuesday by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which alleged Bankman-Fried defrauded investors and used proceeds from investors to buy real estate on behalf of himself and family.
[...] The item goes further, but the seed is planted well by that quote.
First, the quickness of the coordinated move? The court papers appear well planned.
That suggests the decision to drop the shoe was a policy decision, not a matter of timely preparation. Full prior preparation, not sloppy paperwork, but - WHY NOW?
To forestall the Ollie North improbable claim being dusted off and argued? Ollie used it to skate, but there was official motivation to move on then. What? SBF later to assert, uncertainty over what was heard in testimony and what his memory held, with the government likely having seized communication devices and/or all books and records now in the hands of the bankruptcy trusteeship.
Contrary to the assertion "first time" this time, Ollie North was the first time, and he skated. It is a plausible explanation, but - why not say so?
To cover up something else? To not imperil an ongoing investigation? If that, what target(s) and what expectation(s)? To go after crypto all together in one fell swoop? Not peicemeal? How the government moves next, after poisoning the Congressional hearing opportunity this week may show some reasoning, or none. We wait.
Because they wanted to. That is clear as a cause for their action, but why want such an apparently counterintuitive aim? What underlies the move? How quickly will there be follow-up? When and how? And who else beyond SBF direct affiliates are in the crosshairs?
Nailing down a separation of banking and crypto, where the eastern Washington tiny bank with the Moonstone web presence will be made an example? Forestall SBF testimony now until he can be examined by DOJ agents about the bank? So that, perhaps, his testimony that way can be properly constructed? A consistent story of all he knows about others in crypto, and how they use banking? Money laundering by other nations or other nationals? Delving more into political contributions and non-public interrelationships attaching to the donor status, dealings between politicians and crypto community operators?