3 ms·
> 1. How is it that a supposed $250 million bond was secured with (according to news articles) significantly less value than that in assets? How does that work?
by danso 4y ago
> 1. How is it that a supposed $250 million bond was secured with (according to news articles) significantly less value than that in assets? How does that work? The collateral seems to be his parents' house, a few hundred thousand in cash assets and little else beyond that. Huh? So what makes this a $250 million bond?
I believe it boils down to "making a statement". Even if SBF's friends and family were only able to offer up $2.5m in assets (i.e. 1% of a $250M bond, instead of the more common 10% threshold), it's still (according to the court) a massive disincentive for SBF to flee. But the court still wants to assert that he's accused of crimes that merit such a massive bond.
From Bloomberg:
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/sbf-s-250-million-bail-is-one-of-the-largest-in-us-history-it-doesn-t-mean-he-has-that-much-1.1862803 https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/sbf-s-250-million-bail-is-one-of...
> Such bonds also signal the seriousness of the crime being charged, and federal prosecutor Nicholas Roos made that point in court.
> “Mr. Bankman-Fried perpetuated a fraud of epic proportions stealing billions for customers lenders and defrauding investors,” Roos said.
That said, with the revelation in today's Forbes story, I wonder if knowing that Mr. Bankman had $10M worth of gift money from his son was known to the court at the time, or relevant to the bond agreement? i.e. would the court have demanded that money be stashed as collateral along with SBF's home? At the time the bail was announced, SBF was claiming his personal assets were in the $100,000 range
- dragonwriter 4y ago> Even if SBF’s friends and family were only able to offer up $2.5m in assets (i.e. 1% of a $250M bond, instead of the more common 10% threshold) The “more common 10% ‘threshold’” isn’t actually a threshold for security pledged to the court, It’s the fee paid to a licensed bail agent (very often, legislated as the fixed or minimum fee for that service in state law) to stand as surety as an alternative to the defendant offering full value security. But, again, that’s a common feature of state bail systems, not the federal system, which can be much more flexible. > That said, with the revelation in today’s Forbes story, I wonder if knowing that Mr. Bankman had $10M worth of gift money from his son was known to the court at the time, or relevant to the bond agreement If it wasn’t (or if the evidence that it was stolen hasn’t already been reviewed and considered by prosecutors), I would expect further action related to bail conditions and possibly freezing/seizure of that money in the near future.
- jmyeet 4y agoJust compare [1] how swifty and unilaterally the government can act in seizing assets. In this case, Amazon alleged to the Department of Justice (specifically the US Attorney's office for the Eastern District of Virginia) that Carl Nelson, a former employee, had committed the obscure crime of "honest services fraud" and, based on that, the US attorney seized the assets of Carl Nelson, his family, a bunch of associates and even their lawyers. By the way, that was 2 years ago. The government ultimately settled and returned most of the money. No one has ever been charged. So why is SBF getting the kid glove treatment? In other circumstances, based those gifts, SBF's parents' assets would 100% be seized. I stand by my assertion that SBF secured his release with the proceeds of the crimes he committed. [1]: https://reason.com/2022/02/18/fbi-seized-almost-1-million-from-amy-sterner-carl-nelson-never-charged-them-with-a-crime/ https://reason.com/2022/02/18/fbi-seized-almost-1-million-fr...