GuShiio.com The SBF has begun to move significantly closer to the Republican Party, criticizing the Biden administration or seeking amnesty.
Sam Bankman-Fried Speaks To The New York Sun From Prison
Compiled by: Odaily Planet Daily jk
preface
Here are the A.R. Hoffman (AR), deputy editor-in-chief of The New York Sun, conducted a 45-minute interview with former cryptocurrency billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried. At the peak of his cryptocurrency exchange FTX, SBF was thought to have the potential to become the richest person in the world.
However, with the collapse of FTX and its affiliated company Alameda Research, everything fell apart in an instant. In the end, Bankman-Fried was convicted of fraud and other crimes and sentenced to 25 years in prison without parole.He has appealed the verdict, insisting that he was presumed guilty and believes that his company has always been solvent and that there were major mistakes in FTX’s bankruptcy handling.
The interview was conducted at the Manhattan Detention Center. The following is what SBF said personally, with only necessary editing. All three interviews were conducted on the evening of Tuesday, February 18, 2025, for 15 minutes each, and were separated by an hour in accordance with prison regulations. The conversation covered his views on the current political situation, his hopes for a possible pardon from President Trump, his reflections on the judges who tried him, and his thoughts on Danielle Sassoon, the prosecutor charged with prosecuting him. Notably, Sassoon recently resigned after refusing to drop the case against New York Mayor Adams.
In addition, SBF also shared his deeper thoughts on his personal experience-from being in control of huge wealth to ultimately having nothing.
interview records
AR: Hello, Sam. I am AR. It’s nice talking to you. I know you have a lot to say, especially about the current political environment. There has been talk about amnesty recently, and your prosecutor Danielle Sassoon has been in the news frequently. We have limited time, so why don’t we just talk about your opinion? A lot has indeed happened recently.
Sam Bankman-Fried: As you said, my prosecutor recently made the news because of a conflict with the Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ). The judge I was tried by Kaplan was also one of the New York judges appointed by Trump, and the current situation involves a confrontation between the Trump administration’s DOJ and the judicial system inherited from the Biden administration. The Justice Department is undergoing major changes, and the president and his team believe thatBias in the judicial system, abuse of power by prosecutors, and even politicization of the Ministry of Justice have intensified over the past few decades.
AR: Do you think your case is part of this political battle?
Sam Bankman-Fried：I think this is just part of it.Obviously, many things are happening at the same time, and whenever a high-profile case is involved, the careers of all the officials involved will be affected. I don’t believe my case was heard fairly and impartially, especially in the light of some of the judges ‘decisions during the trial. For example, Judge Kaplan allowed the prosecution to declare to the jury that everyone lost all funds, but in another ruling he refused to allow the defense to refute that…
AR: That is to say, the court allows the prosecution to make this statement, but prohibits you from clarifying the facts. This was clearly one of the key issues in the trial. This is just one example of many judicial issues. So, how do you view the current turmoil in the Justice Department, especially the Southern District Attorney’s Office? Do you think your case reflects broader issues of prosecutor misconduct?
Sam Bankman-Fried: I do think my case has something in common with broader issues. One area worth paying attention to is the sentencing of all those who pleaded guilty. There was a Republican who pleaded guilty to only a handful of charges-frankly, I don’t think anyone was really guilty, and I certainly don’t think he was guilty-but he was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison. That is four times longer than the combined sentences of the other three guilty offenders. All three guilty pleas are Democrats. There are clear signs of politicization,Including prosecutors threatening his wife that if he did not act as the Biden administration’s Justice Department wishes, she could be prosecuted for being a Republican congressional candidate. This is one of the most direct cases of political manipulation.
At the same time, my case involves many factors. One of them was that people were beginning to realize that I was actually working closer with the Republican Party, much more than the public knew before. I have provided financial support to Republican and conservative organizations, and this information has not been made public before.
AR: Do you think this is part of the story? The media sometimes reports that you donate staggering amounts to Democrats, while donations to Republicans are only symbolic or to maintain a superficial balance. Do you think the public, the government, or others have misunderstood your political positions and tendencies?
Sam Bankman-Fried: I think there are some situations in both aspects. Those were said in a federal prison. When I made my first large donation in 2020,I did donate it to Biden.Part of the reason is that I don’t want the Democratic Party to turn into a party like Bernie Sanders. At the time, I saw myself as the centre-left, but I no longer see myself that way, and by 2022, my opinion will have changed.
Over the next few years, I spent a lot of time in Washington, D.C., working with lawmakers, regulators, and the executive branch on a variety of issues, most of which related to cryptocurrency policy. However, as time went on, I became increasingly disappointed and frustrated with the Biden administration and the Democratic Party. I don’t know if my position has changed or if the Democratic position has shifted, but at least in the areas I am most familiar with-especially cryptocurrency policy-the Biden administration’s attitude has been extremely disruptive and even difficult to cooperate with. Frankly, the Republicans are more rational on these issues, so I spent a lot of time in Washington doing everything I could, hoping that even if the Democrats controlled the White House and the House and Senate, we could still work across parties to prevent the government from implementing tough policies on industry.
AR: I want to ask you a question-not sure if you have paid attention to this topic, but it has been widely discussed: the “attitude shift” of technology leaders such as Zuckerberg and Bezos. You may have come into contact with these people. If your trial had not taken place, do you think you could have stood on the stage of the presidential inauguration? Or to put it another way, what do you think of this phenomenon? Do you think your story has some connection to current changes in technology culture?
Sam Bankman-Fried: I certainly can’t speak for them, but I think they may have seen what I saw over the past four years. berg could probably express this best-I guess he would have liked the government to take a reasonable and constructive approach to disinformation,But the end result turned into “false propaganda under the banner of anti-false information”, more like a form of political censorship. I think they have encountered similar frustrations in working with the Biden administration, as many people in the crypto industry have experienced when it comes to business and free speech issues.
AR: What do you think of politicians issuing meme tokens? Have you heard of the Trump Coin that Trump issued before taking office?
Sam Bankman-Fried: I’ve heard of it, but for well-known reasons, access to information in prison is very limited, so I don’t know as much about it as I would have liked. However, I’m not surprised to see politicians starting to venture into the digital realm. Over time, I expect more and more industries to explore this area, in part because cryptocurrencies are more flexible than traditional financial systems. This is one of the reasons why the industry is growing so rapidly and innovations emerge endlessly. Blockchain infrastructure is more modern and open, with lower development costs, and there is no need to worry about violating patents, regulatory enforcement monopolies or other obstacles in the traditional financial system when building across regions.
AR: Let me ask you a question-I’ve talked to a lot of people in the crypto industry and the bankruptcy clearing world, and they have expressed serious concerns about the way you handled your case and the way FTX is managed. Many related issues are mentioned in court documents, but from your perspective, what makes you still hopeful? What frustrates you? Clearly, issues like amnesty are at the intersection of politics and law. I’m curious, from your perspective in prison, what are the possible breakthroughs?
Sam Bankman-Fried: By far, the thing that frustrates me the most-but recently has also given me some hope in some ways–It is a matter of bankruptcy management.
The situation for banks in this regard is similar, but of course larger. Banks have millions of customers and trillions of dollars in capital. Sometimes, a large number of customers make withdrawal requests in a short period of time, and banks need to pay billions of dollars in a short period of time. Banks do not deposit all assets as cash, but hold assets such as treasury bonds and mortgages. As a result, they sell assets in exchange for cash to respond to withdrawal needs.
This is the so-called “bank run”. It does put pressure on banks, but it does not cause customers to lose money. This is just a matter of liquidity management. Banks need to adjust their asset structure in a short period of time to meet market demand.
A similar situation occurs for FTX. Before the crisis broke out in November 2022, our net assets were approximately US$10 billion and an equity value of US$20 billion. Then, suddenly there was a “run”-FTX customers began withdrawing billions of dollars from the platform every day. So we took the usual bank measures to deal with runs, and just like you sell a car for cash, we were selling assets in exchange for liquidity.
The process is expected to take days to weeks, but we have received multiple offers to accelerate transactions. This is indeed a huge undertaking, but it is a common liquidity management issue in the financial system and should not lead to customer harm.
However, the situation did not develop according to normal market logic.A law firm took over FTX and did nothing for the next two years except pretend there were no money left in the account.
AR: Sam, do you consider yourself innocent?
Sam Bankman-Fried：Yes, absolutely. Of course, there are many things I would choose to handle differently, and as CEO, I have made many decisions. But there is no doubt that the biggest mistake I made was that in November 2022, I did not follow through.
I should never have let Sullivan Cromwell take over FTX.I should have stood up to them, but I didn’t. Since then, not just me, but millions of customers have gone through a long and painful wait, mistakenly told that there was no money in their accounts, and only recently began to receive compensation.
AR: I want to ask you a question-from Danielle Sassoon to other prosecution representatives, their charges against you revolve around fraud, greed and misconduct. For most people, the scale of money you handle is almost unimaginable.
Let me start here: What is your attitude towards money? There have been a lot of reports about your interest in “Effective Altruism” and other causes. But simply put, what does it feel like to have such huge wealth? What do you really think? On a larger level, what was your original intention?
Sam Bankman-Fried: That was an amazing fortune, and it came suddenly-in just a few years, I had funds far beyond anything I could have imagined in my life.
There are two levels to my approach to money. The first is my personal life. From this perspective, my life has not changed much. I live on my salary. Although an annual salary of $200,000 is a considerable amount, it is far from billions of dollars in wealth. I haven’t made drastic changes in my lifestyle, and to be honest, I have never been attracted to luxury living. I have never understood the charm of yachts, for example, it has never been a wise way to allocate resources for me.
Instead, I focused on larger funding operations and their potential impact on the world. I view this wealth through the lens of “effective altruism”: Since I have the money to donate, where can it have the greatest positive impact?
Part of it goes to global health-helping people who die from preventable diseases such as malaria and schistosomiasis. Another part is used for animal welfare and epidemic prevention. Of course, some of the money is also invested in the political field. I think these are areas where large-scale funding can be effectively used-billions of dollars in investment can really make substantial changes.
AR: How have you experienced these ups and downs over the past few years?
Sam Bankman-Fried: From a personal perspective… there are a lot of things that I don’t like. But money is not the most important thing…What I miss most is freedom.But what frustrates me most is that I had hoped to make a positive impact on the world, and now I can’t do that anymore.
There are a lot of great causes and charities that were counting on my big donations over the next decade, but now they can’t get those funds anymore. Not only that, they were even influenced and stigmatized because they were associated with me. It makes me feel very sad and I feel deeply guilty about it.
AR: You were at the forefront of the cryptocurrency industry, and some even compared the industry to the “Wild West.” Whether it’s competing fiercely, working with controversial figures, or becoming part of an industry that’s still groping-do you feel frustrated? Because some people still move freely, and you, a person who once had altruism, have ended up in this situation?
In other words, a religious person might ask,”Why me?” Have you ever felt unfair or angry?
Sam Bankman-Fried: Obviously, I’m very frustrated by what’s happened to me, but I try not to view other people in a negative way. This way of thinking is neither constructive nor fair.
In the final analysis, my misfortune was not their fault, and they should not suffer because of my misfortune. Many of them have made quite impressive achievements in their field. Yes, we have had cooperation and disagreements, but my failure does not mean their success is undeserved.
AR: If one day you could regain your freedom–no matter how–have you thought about what you would do? Do you still want to go back to the crypto industry? Or, have you ever had an experience like an “epiphany moment” that gave you a different idea about the future? Or is it all too far away to imagine?
Sam Bankman-Fried：This is obviously a very, very distant issue. If that day really comes, I must seriously think about my future direction.
But for now, I try not to dwell on this issue because I have no control over it. I still have more than twenty years to serve. Moreover, frankly speaking, judging from the statements of the prosecutor and the judge in court, their intention seems to be to prevent me from having a meaningful life again after serving my sentence.
So now to think about what I would do if the situation changed is like putting the cart before the horse.
AR: What is the one thing you miss most? Is it something simple, like walking, drinking coffee, or talking late at night with friends?
Sam Bankman-Fried: To me, the physical level is never the most important thing.
Obviously, I miss conversations with friends. But what hurts me more than that is,I lost my freedom of information–Unable to obtain external information at any time. I just miss the loss of the ability to search for information on the Internet at will.
Besides, what I miss most is being able to devote myself to a meaningful job. These two points are the most difficult to let go of after I lost them.
AR: What’s the most realistic thing for you next? Do you have any expectations for what will happen in the coming weeks or months? Is the feeling static, or is there some kind of narrative progress?
Sam Bankman-Fried: Life is pretty monotonous. There is not much to do in prison.
I’m used to putting myself into my work, but there’s nothing to do here. From a more macro perspective, the most important thing next is the outcome of my appeal. Oral arguments are expected in the next three to six months. I am cautiously optimistic, but in the federal criminal justice system, the odds of any reversal are low. So to say “cautiously optimistic” just means that I think we still have a silver lining. I hope the judges will carefully and critically examine the whole incident.
In addition, as prisoners, we have little control over our lives. Most things are not decided by us, they happen to us. For example, now suddenly there is the possibility that I may be transferred to other parts of the country, a process that may take days, weeks, or even months. This obviously disrupts what little routine I have left.
AR: I’m very interested in the topic of “control”. It seems to me that you have always been–it may be a cliché–a “subversive”, someone who prefers to build his own kingdom rather than live under the rules set by others. Whether in college, corporate, or other fields, you always seem to want to do things your own way.
Now you are thrown into the strictest and most rigid system. I don’t have any particularly profound insights, but I just think that the law itself is a huge system.
There are various stories here, but one of the commonalities is what you just mentioned–You are thrown into this system and you completely lose the initiative. This is a dehumanizing place, an environment where there are no choices and no autonomy.
For many people, especially those who cannot afford to hire a lawyer, they rely on public defenders. Sometimes they will meet good lawyers, but many times they will not. As a result, they cannot even control their own cases. Even if they want to participate, their voices are often not really heard. Their defense process is happening all around them, but they themselves seem to be caught in the trend of the judicial system, drifting with the tide, regardless of the facts.
AR: How do you view all this? I think you have always been a person who has a tendency to think logically and even mathematically-correct me if I am wrong. But now, you have to deal with the way the legal system works. Does this shift frustrate you? Do you feel that these two ways of thinking are completely different, like “Alice in the Mirror”, entering a completely unfamiliar world?
Sam Bankman-Fried: Yes, there are two levels involved.
First, the law itself does sometimes seem weird, outrageous, and even illogical.
This doesn’t just apply to my case, I see many people here facing extremely ridiculous dilemmas.
For example, can you kidnap a person for six seconds? This may sound like a strange question, but in fact, in half the United States, the answer is “yes”-at least legally. Such charges could result in a 25-year prison term.
This is just one example. But another, deeper issue lies in the way the entire criminal justice system works. You will find that at some stages, judges are like small dictators, in charge, and at other stages, prosecutors have absolute power. If their sentences don’t make sense, they really don’t make sense-and there is often no real remedy.
There is no competition and no accountability here.In a sense, this is a monopoly system.
If those in power have no interest in justice on a particular issue, this is the case. Of course, you can appeal, but the process takes years. It may take three years to get a “second opinion”.
AR: Before all this happened, you tried to explore how to use huge resources to have social impact. Do you think you have found a way to make wealth effectively improve the world?
Sam Bankman-Fried: I have some ideas, but I definitely haven’t found the “ultimate answer.” I don’t think anyone found it.
There is still a lot I need to learn, but at least some basic principles are starting to become clear. Some truths are actually obvious, such as paying attention to details, paying attention to data, and paying attention to the actual impact of different undertakings.
One of the biggest problems is thatScale is very difficult. You may find an intervention that works very well with small resources, but if you increase the funding tenfold, the extra 90% may be completely wasted.Sometimes, the limiting factor is not even money, but whether there is a truly efficient team.
The most consistent pattern we have found is that the most successful sports, causes, charities, and organizations tend to have a well-functioning team-with clear goals, strong but thoughtful leadership, and an entire structure that collaborates efficiently. But this situation is rare.
As long as there is no such team, efficiency will completely collapse. No matter how much money is invested, the fundamental problem cannot be solved.
Frankly, I think the government has the same problem, and we are seeing it happening in real time.
I don’t know if you’ve paid attention to Doge and what’s happening around it, but this is actually a real-life debate about “reform versus revolution”-whether to choose a scalpel or a chainsaw.
Over time, I have become more and more inclined to the “chainsaw” approach in some cases. Some things don’t just require cutting redundancy by 10%, but require cutting redundancy by 30%, 50%, or even 70%. But of course, after the cuts, they must be rebuilt correctly. You can’t just cut everything and leave a blank.
Look at the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission)-the entire crypto industry can’t communicate with it properly. The question is not whether the institution needs to be a little more efficient, but that it seems to exist entirely to stifle innovation.
However, the irony is that it employs a huge workforce but actually achieves almost nothing.
AR: Sam, your story is truly extraordinary. But as you said, whether it is your appeal or a potential pardon, exceptions will be required to your case.
Do you consider yourself a special case? Is your case unique, or do you think it represents a broader issue?
Sam Bankman-Fried：The pattern I see in my case is not unique.Similar problems exist in many other cases.
But when the media steps in, when public attention is high, and when political factors-whether partisan politics or workplace politics-are mixed in, everything is amplified. When professional incentives for law enforcement officials are also involved, these models not only exist, but also expand and spread endlessly, and become uncontrollable.
So, in some ways, my case is an extreme manifestation of these issues, but it is by no means the only case.
AR: Hey Sam, sorry I missed the 3 p.m. call-I was helping a fellow inmate with legal matters.
Sam Bankman-Fried: It’s okay.
AR: In your appeal, one of your core arguments seemed to be: FTX has always been solvent, the company’s assets were enough to repay all customers, and the eventual collapse was essentially a liquidity crisis. Not only is this key to your appeal, it also seems to be the core issue where you went wrong in understanding the case and how it was handled.
Can you explain it in detail?
Sam Bankman-Fried: I had been reviewing financial statements and balance sheets regularly, and during the crisis, we also made sure that we identified the actual assets held by each entity.
I still have many of the financial statements and balance sheets from the time. We have given all these documents to the bankruptcy administrator in case they need them, but they have no interest in them.
In addition, I have also been watching the progress after bankruptcy,And-every financial statement-whether before, during, or after bankruptcy-shows FTX is solvent.All data shows that our assets are always greater than our liabilities. This fact has never changed, and we all know it.
This has always been our most important metric. If this were not the case, then we would indeed face a real crisis, possibly insolvent and without a solution. But in fact, the data can be traced.
If we look at assets and liabilities of FTX and Alameda as a whole, during the bull market in 2021, our total net asset value will be approximately US$40 billion to US$50 billion, and FTX will have an equity value of US$20 billion to US$30 billion.
Then, the market collapsed in the first half of 2022. Even so, we still have about $20 billion in assets, corresponding to $10 billion in liabilities-a leverage ratio of about twice.This means that even if a “bank run” occurs, if all FTX customers suddenly try to withdraw all their funds, we will be able to sell these US$20 billion in assets in exchange for cash to meet the withdrawal demand.
In addition, FTX has an additional US$20 billion in equity to support it. This has not changed throughout the crisis and remains true to this day.
From a certain perspective, I think in November 2022, we could have-and are actually working on–All customers will be repaid in full on an in-kind basis, that is, customers will receive the assets they applied for withdrawal, rather than the converted amount in legal currency.We were selling investments to speed up the process and had already received billions of dollars in liquidity support so that payments could be made in days or weeks. Some of these funds have already begun to arrive.
However, looking at the present, the frustration of many customers is completely understandable. After all, it had been two and a half years, and in the first two years, they had gotten almost nothing. Now, what they receive is not the cryptocurrency they originally held, but the equivalent in US dollars based on the petition-day price.
I fully understand their frustration. Frankly, the insolvency management team and the debtors made a very strange decision-they chose early not to return client assets as they were, but to pay only in dollar equivalent. But this was entirely their own initiative, not that they “had to” do it.
If they had done nothing for the past two years-even just sat there doing nothing-today the estate should have an excess value of $40 billion to $60 billion, depending on whether it included equity and what they could have done with the company.
If all assets were paid back as is, customers would have received complete crypto assets,Instead of paying them in US dollars at the price of US$17,000 per bitcoin on the day of the bankruptcy filing, they returned their bitcoins directly.
Therefore, whether in November 2022 or today, paying back all customers ‘assets should not be an issue. And, as prices in the crypto market rose, things should have gotten better-if assets had not been unreasonably consumed over the past period…
AR: So, what went wrong? Is it because people can’t read books? Do you think this is malicious behavior or was there a misunderstanding during the transmission of the information?
Sam Bankman-Fried: If the option was to spend the next few days or weeks liquidating assets-the usual response to bank runs: selling investments and assets to meet withdrawal needs-then it would be feasible and it would be done quickly. This is exactly what we have been doing and it is a direction we can move forward.
Another option is the proposal proposed by Sullivan Cromwell (SC): take over the company and file part of its operations for bankruptcy protection (Chapter 11). At the time, I wasn’t sure what their specific plan was, but now we have seen the results.
I certainly t fully know what other people really think, but extrapolating from their actions… you ask them if they misread the financial statements-the problem is not just misreading,They are not willing to carefully review any financial documents compiled by the company. They directly denied it completely on the grounds that “these data are not credible”, but at the same time, they confidently declared in public that FTX was “hopeless” and even used the metaphor of “garbage dump fire” to describe the company’s situation.
There is no reasonable basis for them to draw this conclusion, especially if they completely ignore existing financial data. Moreover, these data actually do not show what they claim to be. Based on their own statements over the past few years, initially in late 2022 or early 2023, they claimed the company had only US$1 billion in assets. A few months later, they said they found US$5 billion, which later became US$7 billion, and grew to US$13 billion by early 2024. By 2025, this figure will become US$15 billion. These assets have always been there, and the numbers only keep growing after they stopped ignoring them.
AR: Try to help me clarify a question: What is the relationship between the allegations that FTX uses client funds and the way FTX and Alameda operate? How does this relate to the argument that FTX has been profitable all along?
Sam Bankman-Fried: That’s a good question-it’s frustrating that we didn’t have a chance to explain it at trial. Moreover, the prosecution is not willing to discuss this issue in depth.
There are two key perspectives here. First of all, it is necessary to clarify whether “borrowing” has actually occurred. In other words, are the assets deposited by customers borrowed and used by other customers? Or is the balance of each account just a reflection of their actual holdings, such as a customer’s account having 3 bitcoins and 2 ethereum, and the exchange does hold the corresponding 3 bitcoins and 2 ethereum in the wallet to match?
For FTX US, it is basically the latter situation. Most customers only trade spot, they do not trade on margin or leverage, so there is no negative balance in their accounts. The total assets of these customers exactly match the assets in FTX US wallets.
But for FTX International, the situation is different.About 80% of assets are leveraged, which means that these accounts don’t simply hold part of Bitcoin or a small amount of U.S. dollar balances, but involve leveraged transactions. For example, a customer might have $500 in Bitcoin and $400 in Ethereum, but these assets are based on leverage…When a user deposits $100, then uses leverage to buy $500 of assets, and borrows the remaining $400, the exchange will not hold $500 of assets to represent the account, but will only hold $100. This leveraged trading model accounts for most of the trading activity on FTX International, both in terms of asset size and trading volume.
So of course, it will involve lending-this is the core function of the platform. Users can use margin trading, conduct cross-margin management, deposit any asset as collateral, and then use leverage to trade, whether it is buying and selling tokens or futures.
AR (Interviewer): Your argument is not “moral luck”-that is, it’s not that everything can be rationalized after the fact because there is enough money in the end. Instead, you are saying that this operating model is the way the platform works and was designed this way from the beginning.
Sam Bankman-Fried: Yes, this has always been the core operating logic of the platform.
Of course, there is another key consideration in this process: solvency. Even if users know that the platform will involve lending and re-hypothecation, they still expect the platform to be able to meet its financial obligations. If you deposit collateral and trade, and then close your position later, the platform should be able to reasonably satisfy your withdrawal request.
If an exchange is completely insolvent, then it cannot meet users ‘withdrawal needs, which ultimately is the biggest risk. If you lose solvency, everything will collapse.
But on FTX, most transactions involve borrowing and re-mortgage by default-that’s how the platform works. Moreover, judging from book data, FTX’s total assets are always higher than the asset size of pure spot accounts. About 20% of the assets on the platform come from users who do not use leverage or futures trading, and these assets are always directly redeemed.
Of course, there are many details involved-these are just general summaries. If you go deeper, you can also analyze in detail the Terms of Service and how different parts of it apply to different asset types. But from a macro perspective, this is the basic principle.
AR: Do you think the issue of solvency is related to “intent”? Does it involve the mens rea (criminal intent) requirement for fraud?
Sam Bankman-Fried: I think it’s relevant to some extent.
Put it another way-if a platform provides lending services, and in the end someone takes and spends too much assets, causing the platform to be completely bankrupt, with a debt of 10 times the assets, and not only are the assets mismatched in the account, but there are also no saleable assets available to repay customers, then such behavior will obviously cause others to lose money, and it is “knowing that losses will inevitably occur.”
However, if this is not the case, then while this does not answer all legal questions, it can at least answer one basic question-whether there is a clear theft here,Or is this just a contractual dispute over commercial obligations?
(The phone is disconnected here in the original text)
