“While the existence of a law might be relevant to establish a statutory duty of care, the absence of regulation is not relevant to whether money was, in fact, entrusted to the defendant’s care by his victims,” the DOJ filing said, adding that the existing criminal rulebook is sufficient. “There are prohibitions on misappropriating customer assets – they are the very laws that the defendant has been charged for violating.”
Prosecutors also dismissed Bankman-Fried’s arguments that pooling and reallocating customer funds was common in the crypto industry at the time, saying that legal argument only worked if he believed the practice was lawful.
‘Enforcement 40’ for 2020
Join Us On LinkedIn
Join the Securities Litigation and Enforcement Group on LinkedIn