Originally Posted by Hairy Chinese Kid
Thanks for this link. The one thing I really don't understand is how the DoJ would allow people they have indicted just to walk off without any punishment, other than the closure of the business (not sure how to phrase this correctly) through which the (according to the DoJ) illegal activity took place.
Don't those personally indicted only have the scuppering of this deal, and possibly trying to recover ownership of certain bank accounts as collateral? If I was going to be personally indicted I am not sure why I would be in a rush to give up my ownership of FT. Is this a reasonable reading of where the negotiations might be?
The forfeiture and the resale of the assets to GBT have nothing to do with the indictment against certain individuals. Those ppl still face criminal charges, with or without this sale.
Let's say it this way, the company is already gone really. It is insolvent and cannot recoup on its own. It could either be sold outright (they tried that, much too late, to no avail), forfeit its assets (as we are now watching happen), or hang on for another few weeks and then face bankcruptcy/liquidation (benefits no one).
I don't understand the "collateral" comment tbh, so could you please explain further.
Also, there is no way that a civil forfeiture in this case will ever dismiss the criminal charges against those indicted in the criminal action so I do not see the incentive in refusing to make the deal for that reason. The alternative is to wait and fight it out in court, both civilly and criminally. Each day that passes, the assets are worth less and less, and the costs are more and more. Stalling does not hurt the DOJ, it hurts the players that are out the ~ $350 million. That would not bode well on your resume when its your turn before a judge. JMHO.