Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AutoModerator t1_j07t091 wrote

Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/nyc, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a >responsibility to be skeptical, check sources and comment on any flaws. You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find >evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

drpvn t1_j07ys7w wrote

Margaret McPoyle?

129

-wnr- t1_j089fuo wrote

Hopefully she doesn't manage to cut a deal to completely avoid prison. SBF is the big fish, but she was still CEO of the company that promised unrealistic returns and took stolen FTX customer funds to make high risk investments.

221

aviciiavbdeadpunk t1_j08a7a7 wrote

she became a billionaire by using the sorting hat in harry poter

44

bittoxic00 t1_j08d9jm wrote

Replying to -wnr- (#930,898)

Her personal margin account was said to be negative 1.5 billion with a ‘B’. She 100% gambled with customer funds and likely has a couple cold storage wallets for the future. If she gets off scott free it’ll be insane

164

md702 t1_j08hwbz wrote

She deserves to go to jail every bit as much as sbf. She was an accomplice.

88

invertedal t1_j08ipqv wrote

NYPost: "Let's cover a really important story, but do it in the stupidest way imaginable!"

For more thoughtful reporting, see this article.

13

SimmerDownRizzo t1_j08klea wrote

We have enough rats in the city already. No thanks.

19

jay5627 t1_j08uejm wrote

Do they really need someone to flip? Hasn't he basically admitted to fraud in the interviews he has done recently

62

awayish t1_j096x7u wrote

Replying to -wnr- (#930,898)

i mean these same customers were also long on crypto, the exact strat that blew up alameda. no tears shed for anyone involved. it's good that this stuff is firewalled off from actual functional finance.

−11

gghardstick123 t1_j097jjh wrote

Shit if I see her in nyc I’ll take back some of those investments

9

bsanchey t1_j09pi8y wrote

She sang like a canary

1

Blackspeare29 t1_j09v8ln wrote

Let’s hope she can make up in other ways to her being cosmetically challenged!!

0

PhillyFreezer_ t1_j09wuyn wrote

Replying to qdpb (#932,378)

He’s got really good lawyers and would be in from to a jury. They’ll spend half the trial explaining what crypto is before they can even get to the evidence of why he was committing fraud.

Go look at his interviews recently. Finance speak for a shmuck like me doesn’t make sense at all, so it’s very hard to tell when he’s lying and when he’s not. That’s my fear at least. His lawyers are very good at their jobs

16

JackMeHoff266 t1_j0a0d42 wrote

Replying to jay5627 (#931,871)

Depends if that confession can be admissible in court. I’d assume that his lawyers will argue against that being a credible confession or admission. Flipping someone would build a stronger case against SBF

1

bluebus440 t1_j0a784b wrote

Replying to invertedal (#931,343)

Happy to call the NY Post a shit rag.

But posting something that was published a month ago and comparing it to what the NY Post just posted isn't even comparable..

7

Swagyolodemon t1_j0aajld wrote

Replying to PhillyFreezer_ (#933,566)

He’s screwed homie. He’s been a dead man walking for a while. His counsel is likely going to spend the whole time arguing his ignorance but the facts are overwhelming.

Edit: Should add that the DOJ are going to bring just as good, if not better, lawyers. There are some incredibly talented attorneys that work for them.

19

w4rp3dl0g1c t1_j0abc0k wrote

I wonder if she’s going to get the six nine treatment lol

3

tondracek t1_j0afhxu wrote

Replying to thebruns (#932,991)

There aren’t that many wildly intelligent people who choose to be models so you’d first have to find a few, then find one you’re interested in. Sounds complicated

9

Jimmy_kong253 t1_j0aw6cc wrote

She needs to be locked up along with him

2

Saladcitypig t1_j0b8cgs wrote

Replying to sanjsrik (#932,125)

It's possible to want people to be held accountable for their misdeeds without being sexist. When you say things like this, as you can see from your responses, men are more than willing to add sticks to the fire of sexist bs.

18

Warpedme t1_j0bjrcf wrote

Replying to awayish (#932,432)

I have zero pity for anyone who lost money on crypto. It was legal gambling all along and we kept telling everyone that. It's a scam and always was.

2

spicytoastaficionado t1_j0bknak wrote

Replying to Saladcitypig (#935,510)

It isn't sexist to point out that this is a realistic defense strategy scenario should Ellison be indicted.

For one, we just saw literally the same strategy used by Elizabeth Holmes in one of the most high-profile fraud trials in recent history.

Secondly, that is basically the only defense Ellison would have, short of claiming complete and total ignorance (which wouldn't legally absolve her of guilt or blame).

15

spicytoastaficionado t1_j0bl1k8 wrote

Replying to bittoxic00 (#931,091)

>likely has a couple cold storage wallets for the future

Same with SBF.

With the way these people were purposely (and admittedly) misusing billions in other people's money, it isn't hard to imagine the top players stashed some of it aside.

18

squeakycleaned t1_j0bm1r3 wrote

Fuck this bitch. Put ‘em all behind bars.

1

Saladcitypig t1_j0bm3tz wrote

Replying to spicytoastaficionado (#936,125)

You are putting too much faith in the "I'm just a woman" commenter.

I don't believe that was good faith. I doubt your comment is to, considering you gloss over that. The defense strats are in themselves a product of sexism and defense law is nothing if not dirty, it uses bigotry as a manipulation tool.

Someone can very easily point at a strat while disingenuously ALSO shitting on women because that is literally the majority of troll comments on any topic where a woman is involved. You can pretend it's not, but then you'd be naive, or you're simply employing that strat yourself.

4

spicytoastaficionado t1_j0bpjbv wrote

Replying to UnusualAd6529 (#936,317)

That doesn't refute anything I said, which is the factual statement that Holmes used a defense strategy of pretending to be a victim manipulated by her ex.

I never claimed such a stupid strategy would actually work, just that it is a predictable one.

20

UnusualAd6529 t1_j0bt3x1 wrote

Replying to spicytoastaficionado (#936,397)

What I mean is that there is no reason to make statements like this other than to disparage these people as woman.

Don't get me wrong they should rot in a cell but people use this as an opportunity to express their sexist hatred lol.

The courts aren't stupid and won't let you off just because you get pregnant or make puppy dog eyes at them.

−3

invertedal t1_j0bwgsn wrote

Replying to bluebus440 (#933,998)

Comparing it isn't even comparable? Um, OK, if you say so, but the Post's focus on the sex life of Bankman-Fried's ex-girlfriend does call for some sort of antidote, given the importance of this case in terms of the billions of dollars stolen, and more significantly, in terms of where that money went.

2

gatogrande t1_j0c2lvs wrote

looks like a 10 yr old girl

2

lupuscapabilis t1_j0cmwb7 wrote

When your dad is friends with the SEC chairman, you get protection.

1

bluebus440 t1_j0dy1rd wrote

Replying to invertedal (#936,788)

Truly wtf are you even talking about dude. I didn't read anything about their sex life. SBF's ex girlfriend is an important person in the whole investigation with FTX as the former CEO of Alameda Research.

You posted something a month old that's talking about Ukraine and SBF from the Gray Zone whatever the fuck that is

1

invertedal t1_j0e94q2 wrote

Replying to bluebus440 (#940,107)

Yeah, the text of the NYPost article is just the usual crime-and-punishment stuff, but the video for it, which gets blasted at you as soon as you go to the article, does indeed focus on her sex life. Take my word for it - or go watch the video yourself if you must, but I don't recommend it.

The Grayzone does investigative journalism. Among people who are interested in that sort of thing, it is pretty well known.

2

JackMeHoff266 t1_j0ellom wrote

Replying to jay5627 (#933,903)

That’s not for me to decide- most likely his lawyers will try to prevent that interview from being used as evidence in court. I’m guessing they would argue that it’s not a formal confession or it may have been misleading.

1

Saladcitypig t1_j0fywwa wrote

Replying to sanjsrik (#942,612)

and again you talking not about HER, but about her DEFENSE TEAM of LAWYERS, who very clearly know the world is incredibly sexist and use that cynically.

You are virtually being snotty about the nice suit lawyers make convicted killers wear in court, as if it says something about all men who are convicted of killing. "Hur dur, look at that man again, wearing a suit in court, pretending he didn't kill someone... men be like." Silly.

3

atget t1_j0idyq2 wrote

Replying to Wowzlul (#937,417)

Also, this kind of shit definitely falls under the old dating "rule" of "be attractive, don't be unattractive."

It didn't work for Elizabeth Holmes, but it definitely won't work for Caroline Ellison. Elizabeth Holmes looks like Miss Universe compared to Caroline Ellison.

1