The parents have a multi-million dollar house in their name in the Bahamas where SBF is disavowing knowledge of the arrangements, and claiming that as far as he knew it was to be FTX property.
Dad teaches tax policy, and apparently was present for a lot of meetings in Washington in the last year. It doesn't follow that he knew - most of his work appears to have been on the philanthropic side, where knowledge of tax law is a powerful thing - but there's a very decent chance that the Feds will claim he was an accessory. There's a good chance he is forced to plead that down if it happens given that level of association, even if he's innocent by any reasonable standard, because taking his chances in front of a jury would be a sizable dice roll indeed under the circumstances.
Tenure contracts these days generally have moral clauses, where bringing the university into disrepute is grounds for termination, and the only possible defense that holds water is academic freedom. I suspect Dad is done at Stanford. Mom may well be sufficiently insulated to be on the hook for nothing more than guilt by association, but if this is one of those deals where Dad is the world-renowned expert and Mom has a faculty appointment as a spouse not quite on the same level (which happens, and sometimes the genders are reversed), then they are in a world of hurt here.
NYT's opinion on the filing is that SDNY flipped a whole bunch of people in a real big hurry. That's problematic in the sense that the issues had to be relatively common knowledge. The question, then, is whether there was a 'Don't tell Dad' order. If I had to guess, this is more
Boiler Room than Madoff and Son, but there's a lot we don't yet know.
