4 ms·

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.

Frost1x 4y ago
Public image, perhaps? 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.
dfxm12 4y ago
First, SBF wasn't freed on $700k. His parents put up their house as well. The article does mention this. Second, in NY (and many places), you aren't responsible for the full amount unless you break certain conditions, like trying to flee.
- Towaway69 4y ago
  Did they then have to prove that they could come up with the 250mio if something were to happen?
  - loeg 4y ago
    Nope. It's just an arbitrarily large amount.
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago
  > His parents put up their house as well. What was the value of that roughly?
  - ProAm 4y ago
    I think a couple million. 2.5M if I remember correctly.
    - jjtheblunt 4y ago
      it seems it's not "exactly" their house, either, as it sits on Stanford property, though the article stating such isn't super detailed. https://www.businessinsider.com/sbf-parents-house-on-leased-land-stanford-secure-bail-report-2023-1?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/sbf-parents-house-on-leased-...
- SilasX 4y ago
  Right -- together, they put 3.5% at risk, not 0.28%. [1] A huge distinction to make! 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%.
  - balderdash 4y ago
    But doesn’t this mean that the people that co-signed his bail have basically risked their entire net worth on an unsecured basis? Unless they are billionaires, this seems like a pretty compelling amount to be at risk for people…
    - foxyv 4y ago
      Yes, so a lot of very powerful and wealthy people now have an immense incentive to make sure he gets to court.
  - dfxm12 4y ago
    It still seems like a farce. The way the US justice system treats the rich vs others really is...
felizuno 4y ago
A bail bond is like a mortgage where the money down up front grants you access to the full loan amount. $700k down for a loan on $250m sounds like a pretty sweet deal, so I would assume the parties involved are reputable people and all parties think there is a high likelyhood Sam will show up to trial.
- dantheman 4y ago
  He didn't get a bail bond.
- loeg 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - felizuno 4y ago
    Why go out of you way just to be rude? There was already another comment that helped me learn this detail. I don't have time to follow news like this so closely, so sorry I answered a generic "why don't people have to pay their full bail?". I guess it created some noise in a thread but somebody had already corrected me, all you're adding is vitriol. Hope it made you feel good because all it did was make me regret coming to HN.
    - howeyc 4y ago
      [flagged]
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      > Why go out of you way just to be rude? That is totally fair, but it's worth noting that this exact topic has been beaten to depth multiple times on HN over the past weeks/months. That's probably why you get some gruff replies at this point. But it's also fair to note that you weren't asking a question, you were claiming to know the answer, but were wrong. That also gets gruff replies ;-).
      - dang 4y ago
denlekke 4y ago
the guarantors and SBF will be liable for the full amount if he doesn't show up to court
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Will they? Or will the guarantors only be liable for the amount they've pledged, and SBF liable for the remainder?
- skinnymuch 4y ago
  If SBF doesn’t come to court he’s not going to be around to be liable.

Frost1x 4y ago

Public image, perhaps? 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.

dfxm12 4y ago

First, SBF wasn't freed on $700k. His parents put up their house as well. The article does mention this. Second, in NY (and many places), you aren't responsible for the full amount unless you break certain conditions, like trying to flee.

Towaway69 4y ago
Did they then have to prove that they could come up with the 250mio if something were to happen?
- loeg 4y ago
  Nope. It's just an arbitrarily large amount.
MuffinFlavored 4y ago
> His parents put up their house as well. What was the value of that roughly?
- ProAm 4y ago
  I think a couple million. 2.5M if I remember correctly.
  - jjtheblunt 4y ago
    it seems it's not "exactly" their house, either, as it sits on Stanford property, though the article stating such isn't super detailed. https://www.businessinsider.com/sbf-parents-house-on-leased-land-stanford-secure-bail-report-2023-1?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/sbf-parents-house-on-leased-...
SilasX 4y ago
Right -- together, they put 3.5% at risk, not 0.28%. [1] A huge distinction to make! 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%.
- balderdash 4y ago
  But doesn’t this mean that the people that co-signed his bail have basically risked their entire net worth on an unsecured basis? Unless they are billionaires, this seems like a pretty compelling amount to be at risk for people…
  - foxyv 4y ago
    Yes, so a lot of very powerful and wealthy people now have an immense incentive to make sure he gets to court.
- dfxm12 4y ago
  It still seems like a farce. The way the US justice system treats the rich vs others really is...

felizuno 4y ago

A bail bond is like a mortgage where the money down up front grants you access to the full loan amount. $700k down for a loan on $250m sounds like a pretty sweet deal, so I would assume the parties involved are reputable people and all parties think there is a high likelyhood Sam will show up to trial.

dantheman 4y ago
He didn't get a bail bond.
loeg 4y ago
[flagged]
- felizuno 4y ago
  Why go out of you way just to be rude? There was already another comment that helped me learn this detail. I don't have time to follow news like this so closely, so sorry I answered a generic "why don't people have to pay their full bail?". I guess it created some noise in a thread but somebody had already corrected me, all you're adding is vitriol. Hope it made you feel good because all it did was make me regret coming to HN.
  - howeyc 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    > Why go out of you way just to be rude? That is totally fair, but it's worth noting that this exact topic has been beaten to depth multiple times on HN over the past weeks/months. That's probably why you get some gruff replies at this point. But it's also fair to note that you weren't asking a question, you were claiming to know the answer, but were wrong. That also gets gruff replies ;-).
    - dang 4y ago

denlekke 4y ago

the guarantors and SBF will be liable for the full amount if he doesn't show up to court

rootusrootus 4y ago
Will they? Or will the guarantors only be liable for the amount they've pledged, and SBF liable for the remainder?
skinnymuch 4y ago
If SBF doesn’t come to court he’s not going to be around to be liable.