The value of course to court is that these two people would help ensure that SBF doesn't vanish, but given that the two individuals are likely very rich I'm not sure how true that is.
I admittedly don't understand the bail process that well and now realize I understand it even less than I thought I did after this case. At some point I may read into it, hopefully I never need to, but none the less one would unknowingly assume when a bail amount it set, that's what should be covered, at least I did.
Second, in NY (and many places), you aren't responsible for the full amount unless you break certain conditions, like trying to flee.
What was the value of that roughly?
https://www.businessinsider.com/sbf-parents-house-on-leased-...
Well ... not really. It still seems like a farce. Either lower the bail amount, or require meaningful proof that the guarantors have access to anywhere near the ostensible figure.
"Your bail is $X, but we'll set requirements that completely ignore $X" seems comedic at best, or special treatment at worst.
(I know, the courts will "come after" the guarantors for the full $250M. It's still irrelevant to the on-the-ground reality.)
[1] 700/250000 = 0.28% . Actual is 700 + 700? (from anons) + 4000 (house) = 8800/250000 = 3.5%.
The way the US justice system treats the rich vs others really is...
To the best of my knowledge they haven't paid anything yet.
Bail bonds are when you have a company make that promise for you at the cost of you paying 10% of the bond. If you show up to court the bail bondsman makes 10% of the bond and if you don't they have to pay the whole bond amount. There's also a system of bounty hunters that somehow happens if you don't show up, but I don't know how that works.
If you can post bail yourself, you don't actually lose any money assuming you show up to court.
There was a villain in Get Smart who had a way of making everybody love him if they looked in his eyes. It's almost as if something like that is going on.
Posted. It’s all “put up.”
Most people don’t have $250mm in cash, but quite a few have that much in assets. The court does better ring-fencing them than forcing a fire sale or jailing SBF with fewer strings to pull.
Well, yes, but no one involved has posted or claimed to have $250M in assets, either.
Yes, they have. They’re under seal with the court. (EDIT: Never mind.)
From [1]:
>>Two non-parent sureties have to sign the bond, pledging amounts approved by the government, by January 5. That means Bankman-Fried must find two non-parent supporters with substantial assets to agree to sign off on the bond and be responsible for up to a specified amount (likely in the hundreds of thousands) if he breaks the terms of the bond.
Those parties might not even be liable for the full $250M, let alone have current access to that much.
[1] Explanation: https://www.serioustrouble.show/p/how-did-sam-bankman-fried-...
[2] Court document: https://www.serioustrouble.show/api/v1/file/fed30a78-b85e-44...