4 ms·

$155,000, according to the linked story. Fraser paid $50,000, which he'll get back when the kid makes his court dates. The alternative was paying 10% and not ge

by irons 16y ago

$155,000, according to the linked story. Fraser paid $50,000, which he'll get back when the kid makes his court dates. The alternative was paying 10% and not getting it back, which I didn't know was standard policy. (Most of what I know about bail bonds comes from Jackie Brown.)

ars 16y ago
It's the policy of the bondsman, not the court. You basically pay the bondsman 10% of the bond in exchange for them posting the rest of it. Some people skip the hearing, and then the bondsman is out the money, so they keep the 10% to cover their risk. I don't know how the $50,000 number works - it seems the bond company is paying the rest of it, but I don't know what they get in return.
- cd34 16y ago
  A bondsman may also make you sign over collateral for the bail and make you put up 10%. If you skip, you (or a family member) loses something like... a house. Once you skip, a bondsman has some pretty darn liberal rights at returning you to the law - and getting his money back.
- MichaelApproved 16y ago
  >>so they keep the 10% to cover their risk. The bondsman doesn't simply absorb the 90% loss if you skip, that's where Boba Fett comes in. I believe if the bondsman's bounty hunters catch up to you before the police do, he gets back the money that was put up.
  - ars 16y ago
    Actually I believe the bondsman gets the money either way (cops or bounty hunter) - but the bondsman has to pay the bounty hunter, and the 10% helps cover that.
JimmyL 16y ago
Interestingly, there are some district courts/jurisdictions that are turning against bail bondsmen for being exploitative. Some will try and outright ban them from operating (either by explicit local ordinance, or by denying them the agreements on standing credit and prisoner transfer that they need to operate), but more interesting are the courts that try and eliminate them via competition. As of now, bail bondsmen generally charge a fee of 10% of the bond posted, and then use a standing line-of-credit they have with a local bank to pay the bond to the court. The fee covers their costs and the costs of hunting down people who skip bail, and the line-of-credit is what actually pays the bond. To out-compete them, some courts are setting a normal bail bond, but giving people the option of satisfying the bond by paying 10% in cash (which is refunded if they show up in court) as opposed to 100% on credit from somewhere. Let's say someone is placed on bail with a bond of $100K. Option 1 is to find $10K in cash, use it to pay a bondsman (which costs $10K), and then have the bondsman put up the $100K to get them out of jail. Option 2 is to find $10K in cash, pay it to the court directly, and then get that $10K back when the person shows up in court. Either way, the person is out $10K - but if they pay it to the court directly, they'll get it back.
- Raphael 16y ago
  That sounds like you just lowered the bail, in which case the defendant would probably just pay $1K for someone to borrow the $10K. How can credit and cash be distinguished anyway?
  - davidw 16y ago
    I think it should read 'pay 100K to the court', which you get back.
  - JimmyL 16y ago
    Bondsmen don't generally put up the cash directly for a bond, instead they have a standing deal with the courts they work that guarantees that they will pay if someone skips bail (which is backed by the local line-of-credit; I should have been clearer about that). Thus, it's pretty clear who's paying for the bond. If someone walks in with a bunch of cash or a cheque then they're probably doing it themselves (or they've committed some other crime by getting money from an unlicensed lender), if a bond agent walks in and says "he's with us", then it's with them. On paper, it's lowering the bail. In practice, the amount the person is paying has stayed the same, as have the incentives.

by irons 16y ago

ars 16y ago

It's the policy of the bondsman, not the court. You basically pay the bondsman 10% of the bond in exchange for them posting the rest of it. Some people skip the hearing, and then the bondsman is out the money, so they keep the 10% to cover their risk. I don't know how the $50,000 number works - it seems the bond company is paying the rest of it, but I don't know what they get in return.

cd34 16y ago
A bondsman may also make you sign over collateral for the bail and make you put up 10%. If you skip, you (or a family member) loses something like... a house. Once you skip, a bondsman has some pretty darn liberal rights at returning you to the law - and getting his money back.
MichaelApproved 16y ago
>>so they keep the 10% to cover their risk. The bondsman doesn't simply absorb the 90% loss if you skip, that's where Boba Fett comes in. I believe if the bondsman's bounty hunters catch up to you before the police do, he gets back the money that was put up.
- ars 16y ago
  Actually I believe the bondsman gets the money either way (cops or bounty hunter) - but the bondsman has to pay the bounty hunter, and the 10% helps cover that.

JimmyL 16y ago

Interestingly, there are some district courts/jurisdictions that are turning against bail bondsmen for being exploitative. Some will try and outright ban them from operating (either by explicit local ordinance, or by denying them the agreements on standing credit and prisoner transfer that they need to operate), but more interesting are the courts that try and eliminate them via competition. As of now, bail bondsmen generally charge a fee of 10% of the bond posted, and then use a standing line-of-credit they have with a local bank to pay the bond to the court. The fee covers their costs and the costs of hunting down people who skip bail, and the line-of-credit is what actually pays the bond. To out-compete them, some courts are setting a normal bail bond, but giving people the option of satisfying the bond by paying 10% in cash (which is refunded if they show up in court) as opposed to 100% on credit from somewhere. Let's say someone is placed on bail with a bond of $100K. Option 1 is to find $10K in cash, use it to pay a bondsman (which costs $10K), and then have the bondsman put up the $100K to get them out of jail. Option 2 is to find $10K in cash, pay it to the court directly, and then get that $10K back when the person shows up in court. Either way, the person is out $10K - but if they pay it to the court directly, they'll get it back.

Raphael 16y ago
That sounds like you just lowered the bail, in which case the defendant would probably just pay $1K for someone to borrow the $10K. How can credit and cash be distinguished anyway?
- davidw 16y ago
  I think it should read 'pay 100K to the court', which you get back.
- JimmyL 16y ago
  Bondsmen don't generally put up the cash directly for a bond, instead they have a standing deal with the courts they work that guarantees that they will pay if someone skips bail (which is backed by the local line-of-credit; I should have been clearer about that). Thus, it's pretty clear who's paying for the bond. If someone walks in with a bunch of cash or a cheque then they're probably doing it themselves (or they've committed some other crime by getting money from an unlicensed lender), if a bond agent walks in and says "he's with us", then it's with them. On paper, it's lowering the bail. In practice, the amount the person is paying has stayed the same, as have the incentives.