3 ms·
He didn't actually have to put up $250 million, or even the 10 percent that is normally required by bail bondsmen. The "remarkably generous bail" was that all h
by Megaman69 4y ago
He didn't actually have to put up $250 million, or even the 10 percent that is normally required by bail bondsmen. The "remarkably generous bail" was that all he had to put up for collateral was his parents house, which is only $3 or $4 million. And considering it was bought and paid for with money he made from his crimes, that's awfully generous. Usually they don't allow you to use your illegal money for bail. Normally all illegally gained assets are seized or frozen. Maybe he was able to side step this by putting the house in his parents name? Who knows, but yes, only having to put up 2% for collateral is extremely generous...
- ars 4y agoDo you have a source for absolutely any of this? Every single one of your claims appears to be false, but I'm willing to be convinced if you have evidence.
- mannykannot 4y agoThe bail terms are not what they seem at first sight (at least if what you see at first sight is 1/4 of a Billion dollars and assume that must be backed by collateral beforehand), though they are not trivial, either: https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2022/12/23/bankman-frieds-incredible-shrinking-250-million-bond/ https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2022/12/23/bankm... Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34108127 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34108127
- ars 4y agoI checked your links, and it confirms that basically everything Megaman69 said was indeed false.
- mannykannot 4y agoTo be more specific, the claim that SBF paid for his parent's house with ill-gotten gains appears to be false (possibly a confusion over a Bahamian property), while the claim that SBF has not had to put up anything close to $250M as a condition of the bail is apparently true (it is, instead, beside the point, as explained in the links.)