Re:CoinDesk, Inc. Files Motion to Unseal Names of SBF's Addi...
by xxpor on Friday January 13, 2023 @04:46PM
(#34374330)
They don't know. If they found out (via a leak, not via doing something explicitly illegal themselves like hacking), they would be allowed to publish the name even with the current court order. Basic 1st amendment precedent.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:CoinDesk, Inc. Files Motion to Unseal Names of SBF's Addi...
by londons_explore on Friday January 13, 2023 @05:02PM
(#34374509)
Kinda odd that they care so much then - like it's probably just some rich friends of SBF who were happy to put money up for an old friend, but didn't want their names plastered all over the news.
Re:CoinDesk, Inc. Files Motion to Unseal Names of SBF's Addi...
by tedunangst on Friday January 13, 2023 @05:12PM
(#34374628)
Isn't the point of journalism to find out what's happening instead of making assumptions about what's probably happening?
Re:CoinDesk, Inc. Files Motion to Unseal Names of SBF's Addi...
by xxpor on Friday January 13, 2023 @05:11PM
(#34374606)
Can't know until you find out though.
Re:CoinDesk, Inc. Files Motion to Unseal Names of SBF's Addi...
by adamsmith143 on Friday January 13, 2023 @05:11PM
(#34374609)
Old friend? The guys 20-something. How does he have "old friends" that can spring $250M for him overnight?
Re:CoinDesk, Inc. Files Motion to Unseal Names of SBF's Addi...
by acrispino on Friday January 13, 2023 @05:51PM
(#34375010)
He's out on a personal recognizance bond. Nobody put up $250M
Re:CoinDesk, Inc. Files Motion to Unseal Names of SBF's Addi...
by jimscard on Saturday January 14, 2023 @01:57AM
(#34377939)
That’s exactly what’s at the core of the request — if it was some rich friends of SBF, maybe they’d be happy to gift him the money — but the requirement is that the invidividuals providing the sureity be sufficiently at arm’s length that they would be able to influence him not to flee - so that they could get their money back.
For all we know at this point, they could be co-conspirators.