4 ms·

> This is wrong, a signed surety bond is not collateral, its a binding commitment to liability. Security/collateral for that liability is a separate thing, abd

by nkurz 4y ago

> This is wrong, a signed surety bond is not collateral, its a binding commitment to liability. Security/collateral for that liability is a separate thing, abd the only security provided is the house. Thanks for the detail. I wasn't sure if the "bonds in lesser amounts" were clearly just signed promises to pay, or might also include additional property bonds. It's the "lesser amounts" that confuses me. Does this mean that the additional signer(s) would not actually be responsible for the full $250M if both Sam and his parents were to flee? If so, this would seem to imply that the court has decided that Sam and his parents have non-tainted assets worth more than $250M, which doesn't match the story we've heard so far.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> this would seem to imply that the court has decided that Sam and his parents have non-tainted assets worth more than $250M, What I think it actually implies is that the surety given is a condition described by 18 USC § 3142(c)(1)(B)(xiv) and not 18 USC § 3142(c)(1)(B)(xii), and that people forget that (i)-(xiii) are examples of options, but do not limit the discretion provided by (xiv). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3142 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3142
- nkurz 4y ago
  Thanks for the link, and for your patience. Unpacking that, (xii) says that "such surety shall have a net worth which shall have sufficient unencumbered value to pay the amount of the bail bond", while (xiv) says that they can instead "satisfy any other condition". Does this mean that in your interpretation the headline $250M bail bond number is indeed nominal, and likely no one was required to show that they can actually afford to pay this amount? That if Sam does flee, the court accepts that it will likely collect less than this amount from the signees? And that bail could have just as easily been set at $1B, or $1T with no difference to the court as to his parents' ability to sign for it? (I added an edit to the thread starter mentioning your correction)
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Does this mean that in your interpretation the headline $250M bail bond number is indeed nominal Its not nominal, it is substantive: the bail amount is itself a financial condition—the penalty assessed for flight. Requiring sureties (people who agree to be liable in the event of flight, for the full amount—his parents—or a partial amount—the other sureties—with a process that allows default judgement on prosecution request and irrevocably designates the court as the sureties agent for process, with only what amount to courtesy copies of any notices sent to the surety themselves at the last know address) is a separate substantive condition. Asset qualification of sureties has a purpose, especially for arms-length sureties, but it is not what makes the bail not-nominal. > That if Sam does flee, the court accepts that it will likely collect less than this amount from the signees? I... would not interpret it this way. What I would say is that the court probably expects that the signees so not have nontainted assets sufficient to pay the bail. However, should SBF effectively flee justice, that would mean the any criminal forfeiture would be avoided or indefinitely delayed, but evading the ability of the US government, when motivated, to enforce a default judgement may be... somewhat more difficult. (Furthermore, I suspect if any of the involved parties were to be seen to start moving assets to facilitate that—and I would bet there is more than a little attention on that—there would be uncomfortable conversations and prosecution motions to amend bail conditions, at best.)

by nkurz 4y ago

dragonwriter 4y ago

> this would seem to imply that the court has decided that Sam and his parents have non-tainted assets worth more than $250M, What I think it actually implies is that the surety given is a condition described by 18 USC § 3142(c)(1)(B)(xiv) and not 18 USC § 3142(c)(1)(B)(xii), and that people forget that (i)-(xiii) are examples of options, but do not limit the discretion provided by (xiv). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3142 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3142

nkurz 4y ago
Thanks for the link, and for your patience. Unpacking that, (xii) says that "such surety shall have a net worth which shall have sufficient unencumbered value to pay the amount of the bail bond", while (xiv) says that they can instead "satisfy any other condition". Does this mean that in your interpretation the headline $250M bail bond number is indeed nominal, and likely no one was required to show that they can actually afford to pay this amount? That if Sam does flee, the court accepts that it will likely collect less than this amount from the signees? And that bail could have just as easily been set at $1B, or $1T with no difference to the court as to his parents' ability to sign for it? (I added an edit to the thread starter mentioning your correction)
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Does this mean that in your interpretation the headline $250M bail bond number is indeed nominal Its not nominal, it is substantive: the bail amount is itself a financial condition—the penalty assessed for flight. Requiring sureties (people who agree to be liable in the event of flight, for the full amount—his parents—or a partial amount—the other sureties—with a process that allows default judgement on prosecution request and irrevocably designates the court as the sureties agent for process, with only what amount to courtesy copies of any notices sent to the surety themselves at the last know address) is a separate substantive condition. Asset qualification of sureties has a purpose, especially for arms-length sureties, but it is not what makes the bail not-nominal. > That if Sam does flee, the court accepts that it will likely collect less than this amount from the signees? I... would not interpret it this way. What I would say is that the court probably expects that the signees so not have nontainted assets sufficient to pay the bail. However, should SBF effectively flee justice, that would mean the any criminal forfeiture would be avoided or indefinitely delayed, but evading the ability of the US government, when motivated, to enforce a default judgement may be... somewhat more difficult. (Furthermore, I suspect if any of the involved parties were to be seen to start moving assets to facilitate that—and I would bet there is more than a little attention on that—there would be uncomfortable conversations and prosecution motions to amend bail conditions, at best.)