盘点7起针对SBF的集体诉讼事件

Cointelegraph中文Published on 2022-12-13Last updated on 2022-12-13

Abstract

自FTX崩溃以来,Sam Bankman Fried已成为许多诉讼和调查的对象,接下来可能还会面临更多的诉讼。

自FTX崩溃以来,Sam Bankman Fried已成为许多诉讼和调查的对象,接下来可能还会面临更多的诉讼。

自FTX前首席执行官Sam Bankman Fried(SBF)的加密帝国崩溃以来,针对他的诉讼数量一直在增加,这位前加密“白骑士”在FTX破产后提起的七起集体诉讼中成为被告。

这些诉讼与审查FTX和SBF的众多调查是分开的,比如美国联邦检察官对市场操纵的调查,以及联邦选举委员会可能对SBF向共和党提供的黑钱捐款进行的调查。

下文总结了自11月11日以来针对SBF提起的集体诉讼。

12月7日:Podalsky等人诉SBF等人

在Gregg Podalsky和其他四名个人提起的这起集体诉讼中,前FTX客户指控金州勇士队、SBF以及其他众多名人和FTX高管欺诈地诱导“经验不足的投资者”以收益账户的形式购买未注册证券,导致客户损失数十亿美元。

诉讼中提到的其他公众人物还有汤姆·布拉迪、Kevin O‘Leary、斯蒂芬·库里、特雷弗·劳伦斯和 沙奎尔·奥尼尔,Podalsky要求此案由陪审团审判。

12月5日:Jessup诉SBF等人

FTX客户Michael Elliott Jessup对SBF、Alameda前首席执行官Caroline Ellison和其他FTX高管提起集体诉讼,指控他们有欺诈、不当得利和转换的行为。

法律案件中的不当得利是指在法律认为不公正的情况下,一个人以牺牲另一个人的利益为代价而致富的情况,而转换是指一个人将另一个人的财产 "转换"为自己的情况。

Jessup还要求此案有陪审团,他声称,在FTX上持有资金的客户拥有其加密资产的合法所有权,而被告在没有授权的情况下将这些资产转移给Alameda Research,-在Jessup的律师看来,这构成了转换。

12月2日:Hawkins诉Bankman Fried等人

这起诉讼在加利福尼亚州提起,是由一位在FTX交易所持有资金的客户Russell Hawkins代表所有处境相似的人提起的集体诉讼,并指控SBF等人让客户受到了不公平和欺诈行为的误导。

这起诉讼的被告包括SBF和其他FTX高管,以及会计师事务所Armanino和Prager Metis——其出具的认证报告将FTX的财务状况视为良好。诉讼文件中指出:

如文件所述,个别被告就YBA(收益账户)和FTX实体发表了不真实或误导性的言论。他们公开表示,FTX实体和YBA是投资加密货币的一种可行且安全的方式,这种言论旨在欺骗消费者向FTX实体投资。

11月23日:Pierce诉SBF等人

与Hawkins案的被告相同,FTX客户Stephen Pierce在加利福尼亚州提起了集体诉讼,指控SBF是“历史上最大的诈骗者之一”,他“和他的核心集团将这些资产视为一个行贿基金,用于资助他们自己的专有投资和各种个人活动。”

Pierce再次要求成立陪审团,指控SBF违反了《受敲诈者影响和腐败组织法》(RICO)。

敲诈勒索是一种有组织犯罪,其中建立了非法的协调计划或行动,使犯罪者能够持续地获取利润。

11月21日:Kavuri诉SBF等人

FTX客户Sunil Kavuri在佛罗里达州提起了一项类似于Podalsky诉SBF的集体诉讼,其中列出的被告包括为FTX代言或以其他方式宣传FTX的名人或公众人物,据称他们没有披露他们在该公司获得的报酬或股份。

这也是美国证券交易委员会可能密切关注的一个案件,Kavuri指控FTX正在推广未注册证券,这欺诈性地将其呈现为证券,以吸引客户并让他们对此产生兴趣。

11月20日:Lam诉SBF等人

香港居民兼FTX客户Elliot Lam是在加利福尼亚州提起的另一项集体诉讼的原告,他指控SBF、Ellison和金州勇士队违反了加利福尼亚州的虚假广告和不公平竞争法,还犯有欺诈性隐瞒和民事共谋罪。

Lam声称,被告向不知道 "FTX和YBA的真实性质"的公众销售和推销,如果公众掌握与被告相同的信息,他们就不会选择使用FTX的产品——因此构成欺诈性隐瞒。

11月15日:Garrison诉SBF等人

这起诉讼再次包括了一连串名人演员和公众人物,据了解,他们曾为FTX代言或参与营销活动,Edwin Garrison在佛罗里达州提起的集体诉讼指控FTX的YBA是非法提供的证券。

Garrison还指责FTX从事欺骗性和不公平的商业行为,并参与了一个“欺诈计划”,故意利用“经验不足的投资者”。

一旦这些投诉和必要的文件被提交,就会有案件编号,并立即被指派给一名法官。然后,每个被告都会收到传票和起诉书,法官会列出一份时间表,概述接下来的步骤。

Trending Cryptos

Related Reads

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit54m ago

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit54m ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit1h ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit1h ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit1h ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit1h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit3h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit3h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of ETH (ETH) are presented below.

活动图片