My understanding is that she was the CEO of Alameda and received a loan from FTX based on garbage collateral. That’s not a crime? SBF knew the collateral was junk, so it’s not misrepresentation. Was she also an officer of FTX? A good chunk of those customer funds were from margin accounts that could be loaned out, so it may be hard to prove she knew SBF was dipping into the forbidden cookie jar, especially when there were no real FTX financials and it all seemed to be in SBF’s head.
I’m not saying she’s fully innocent, maybe there’s some incriminating text messages or something, but from the public information so far it doesn’t seem cut and dry to convict her of a serious crime.
There are very strict rules for any regulated firm about the provenance of the funds, ultimate beneficiaries, client-assumed risk, KYC, etc.
These are not only for customer protection, but anti money laundering as well.
Small regulators often overlook the client risk part so as to attract foreign money (that's why most of these regulators will be OK with little to no restriction of derivatives). The anti money laundering part though is very important for these small regulators as they could be fined internationally and don't want the bad publicity.
You cannot just "accept money and trust its from a legitimate source".
I’m not saying she’s fully innocent, maybe there’s some incriminating text messages or something, but from the public information so far it doesn’t seem cut and dry to convict her of a serious crime.