Public disdain grows as we decide who is the worse person, Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) or the man formerly known as Kanye West. Interestingly, the authorities have apprehended neither of these men. SBF's potential crimes are evident and apparent to everyone, and Kanye has committed a hate crime with his threats.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, one couple faces 20 years in prison for a crime many would argue they did not commit. Australian residents Thevamanogari Manivel and Jatinder Singh are being charged with theft after Crypto.com mistakenly deposited $10.5 million in their bank account.

Rather than research the source and return the funds, the couple spent the "perceived" windfall on a lavish lifestyle many of us dream about. According to Business Insider, they gave money to their children, paid off a friend's mortgage, and purchased luxury items, furniture, and art.

The argument against the Australian pair is that they should have recognized the funds were not rightfully theirs and found out who they belonged to. Hence, the prosecution equates their actions as theft and negligent dealing with the proceeds of a crime.

If Manivel and Singh are found guilty, it leads me to wonder: should US lawmakers who accepted funds from Sam Bankman-Fried be required to stand trial for accepting political donations?

I'm not a lawyer

I'm not a lawyer, never spent a day in law school, and won't pretend to know the letter of the law. I'm not trying to cite codes or regulations the Australian couple may have violated, or US political parties may have broken.

But, it raises the question of certain people facing prosecution for alleged crimes that weren't wholly their fault.

Looking at it from the Manivel and Singh side

Crypto.com messed up. They deposited $10.5 million in funds into a bank account for one of their customers. It took Crypto.com over seven months to recognize the error and figure out the mistake they made.

Manivel and Singh almost certainly knew the money was not theirs. But we aren't talking about finding a briefcase of cash in the street and deciding what to do with it. Instead, the funds were deposited into their bank account.

In theory, most of us would find out where the windfall funds came from if we magically had $10.5 million deposited in our checking account. But I'm sure most reading this would be tempted to spend at least some of the funds. I know I would.

After all, is it stealing if someone puts money in your bank account? I'm not a lawyer, but apparently, it is. And if Crypto.com hadn't been reckless, none of the funds would be in the couple's account.

Further, according to the story, $7 million of the assets were accounted for. So Crypto.com is getting a minimum of 70% of the funds they made a mistake in depositing.

Drawing a correlation to US politics

SBF is being interviewed like a celebrity for the tremendous crimes he committed on millions of investors. Yet, on a November 16 phone call, he states, "I donated to both parties. I donated about the same amount to both parties."

It was common knowledge that SBF was a substantial democratic supporter. He was Biden's second-largest donor in the 2020 presidential campaign. But, in regards to midterm elections, he states:

“All my Republican donations were dark. And the reason, was not for regulatory reasons, it’s because reporters freak the fuck out if you donate to a Republican because they’re all super liberal. And I didn’t want to have that fight so I just made all the Republican ones dark,” Bankman-Fried said on the call, claiming he was the “second or third biggest” donor to Republicans in 2022.

Surprisingly, I'm not a political expert either. So I looked up what a dark donation is, and here is the Google definition.

In the politics of the United States, dark money refers to spending to influence elections where the source of the money is not disclosed to voters. In the United States, groups that may spend on campaigns without disclosing who their donors are some nonprofit organizations.

Interestingly, we have tens of millions of dollars donated to Republicans and Democrats that we now learn have been stolen from retail and institutional investors. Unfortunately, like Manivel and Singh, the politicians didn't research where the funds were sourced and (I imagine) spent most of the funds on their campaign.

In total, SBF and his twisted menagerie of terror donated tens of millions of dollars to political campaigns. Does it seem strange that none of these politicians scratched their heads or thought to dig deeper about how this "self-made" guy under 30 could donate so much money?

Further, does the fact that SBF is not in jail now mean that his donations give him preferential treatment? Should dark contributions even be allowed? And should the politicians and their parties who accepted these donations be required to pay back the ill-gotten funds they received?

So why is the Australian couple facing 20 years for a few million, and SBF and politicians haven't had any repercussions?

Wouldn't you agree that SBF "losing" billions of investors' dollars and ruining an untold number of financial lives will have a more significant impact than the $3 million that Crypto.com lost due to its error? And, if politicians are getting windfall donations from questionable sources, should they have due diligence to seek how the funds were earned?

Further, if companies or individuals donate to both sides during an election, does this equate to bribery? Some politicians re-gifted or donated the funds after learning they came from a corrupt source. Can we argue they negligently dealt with the proceeds of a crime? I'm confident FTX investors would rather see those funds than have them donated elsewhere.

The Sickening Part

I don't expect repercussions against any political person or party for accepting stolen money. I doubt the funds will be reimbursed to FTX investors by the parties. But I don't understand how SBF and politicians' actions aren't significantly worse than those of Manivel and Singh.

On a separate point, the SEC has been going after Ripple for two years, accusing them of being a security. This illustrates that the SEC is proactively seeking to regulate crypto. So is the SEC culpable for not enforcing protecting investors from mammoth losses by the FTX bankruptcy, BlockFi bankruptcy, Celsius bankruptcy, Voyager bankruptcy, and other bankruptcies impacting millions of lives?

Further, the head of SEC, Gary Gensler, was meeting with SBF to go over regulations in the crypto space. It's like Gordon Ramsay approached Jeffrey Dahmer for instructions on cooking a vegetarian cookbook.

Takeaways

I'm not saying that the Australian couple isn't guilty of some crime. But if Crypto.com hadn't put the money in their account, none of this would have happened. Meanwhile, SBF knowingly committed fraud and stole account holders' money. In addition, he questionably donated large sums to both political parties. The political parties blindly accepted the funds, just like Manivel and Singh.

I understand one case is in Australia, and the other is in the US, so different laws may apply. Likewise, SBF is/was based in the Bahamas, so that may also have different laws applied. But how can people who fleeced billions of dollars from millions of people not be open to scrutiny or prosecution when a couple who a corporation mistakenly gave millions of dollars faces twenty years in prison?

Let me know what you think. I'm confident there are legal precedents differentiating these crimes. However, I can't see any law allowing one guy to steal billions of dollars and buy politicians. Do you think Manivel and Singh deserve prison time? Would you be tempted to spend $10.5 million if it mistakenly appeared in your account? Share your thoughts in the responses.