28 ms·

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 responsibl

by 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...

by dfxm12 4y ago

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...