>2 non-parent sureties to sign bonds in lesser amounts to be agreed to
I'll be extremely generous and interpret that as two bonds worth 3.99...M each or the absolute max. value that is less than the 4M house.
Would you extend a 250M credit to someone who offers you 11.8M in illiquid assets? Also, they happen to be the parents of one of the biggest fraudsters in recent years ...
Come on, this is ridiculous.
Phrased another way, we're about to find out if SBF is morally bankrupt enough to take away a huge portion of his parents assets as well.
Never said it was and the whole point of this is not whether they put some collateral or not.
The whole point is, how come a 250M bail can be secured with a 4M house? That is the whole thing that is driving everyone nuts.
Divide by a thousand and you may be able to get a better graps of it. Imagine you have a bail set for 250k and you tell the judge, well I have this really shitty used car which (may be) worth 4k, you can keep it, but also you can't take it from me now because well, it's my car :). You would stay in jail.
It doesn't really look any different than normal bail. Maybe this is many people's first exposure to the concept of bail though. Bail is also not just a dollar amount, it's about convincing the judge you've put forward enough to motivate you to stay.
huge portion being +/-10x their net worth and a debt that can not be discharged through bankrupcy.
If he has hundreds of millions hidden away, he could easily ensure that his parents get some of it later to compensate them.
That said, I don't think he will run. His parents are both Stanford law professors and he has an insane number of connectionsand people that owe him favors. I think he will go to court and put up a very strong defense and end up with around ten years in jail at the end of it all.
The Court is not extending $250M of credit based on the collateral of the house.
The Court is assessing that the combination of the $250M penalty, the security given in the form of the claim on the house, the particular full sureties on the hook, the additional partial sureties on the hook for a lesser amount, and the nonfinancial conditions of bail are sufficient to adequately guarantee SBFs appearance (in part, based on the prosecution also accepting that.)
Or for that matter, if they had said that the penalty was $0, and that the securities and sureties were sufficient?
Presumably, they'll never find out, so perhaps it's moot. But I feel like there's a legal distinction or rule I'm missing.
I would not assume they know that, or that that is true.
In fact, I think there is plenty of reason to think that:
(1) SBF has control of assets exceeding $250M (not untainted, and they would likely be subject to criminal forfeiture if he was convicted and they were identified, but in the case of flight...), and
(2) He would not necessarily be successful keeping them out of the reach of a default judgement in favor of the US government if he fled justice
> Or for that matter, if they had said that the penalty was $0, and that the securities and sureties were sufficient?
Security and sureties apply to the penalty, and are meaningless if it is zero.
What argument do you think I'm making? The argument I'm trying to make is that an article serving as an explainer of a complex legal topic should be factually correct, even if it complicates the desired narrative. Do you disagree with this?
> Would you extend a 250M credit to someone who offers you 11.8M in illiquid assets?
As to the bigger question of whether this bail arrangement is reasonable, I don't think we have enough information yet. $250M is an arbitrary large number, and I don't think a percentage is important. The real question is whether whatever agreement has been made is sufficient to pressure Sam into showing up for the trial. Personally, I'm worried that he may still have control of sufficient funds that he can afford to flee and repay in excess whoever takes the loss. But depending on who the unnamed unrelated party (or parties?) are, and what other assets are available for collection, maybe this worry is unfounded. I think we should call attention to the possible impropriety of the arrangement, apply pressure to find out the missing details, but reserve judgement until we know more.
It’s weird that you’re pointing out an irrelevant technical detail which misses the point of the opinion piece. The point is that SBF was able to walk out of jail without paying anything and the author finds this absurd.
Evidence seems to be building that, if they weren’t complicit, they at least benefited from his fraud.
He discovered the Haber process around 1911, which was well before WWII and it was intended for fertilizer only. Eventually people realized that mass ammonia production was very helpful for chemical warfare, and many (including French nobel winners like Grignard) engaged in it.
The Zyklon B synthesis is a red herring.
Sounds like something SBF would find reasonable.