What does it even mean that bail is set at 250mio if he gets free on 700k? I don't understand what's the point of setting bail that high and then ignoring it.
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...
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.