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.
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).
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)
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.)
Almost like there is a reason this is partially secured, not personal (there are additional sureties), and comes with extensive non-financial conditions.
And judge, don’t forget, Mr. SBF voluntarily waived extradition.
But that's not what courts are trying to do with bail, so when you have a bond that isn't from a bail agent, the model that is tolerably-incorrect in the bail agent case becomes wildly inapplicable.
It becomes an IOU if he skips on his court appearance, no? That is, the potential penalty here is an IOU. (You have even described it as a "promise to pay" earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34100971 ) Yes, if he shows up to court, no one pays $250M and everything is great. We are talking about the penalty if he skips. No one has deposited $250M with the courts to be returned when SBF shows up for trial. If he does skips on his court appearance, I find it difficult to believe that anyone will successfully recover anything like $250M from SBF and parents. Which begs the question of what the point of a $250M figure is.
The rest of your comment is just not responsive to my comment? You have replied to several of my comments talking about people in the abstract having "misconceptions" around bail agents, and these responses are wholly unrelated to my remarks, which do not mention bail agents at all and are not about bail agents. So I would appreciate it if you would respond with more specific arguments and leave out the fluff.
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.
OTOH, federal law allows fully unsecured, personal bond of the accused if the jidge thinks it is sufficient, so having any security or surety (where this agreement has both) is optional, so really this just seems to be a bunch of people who don’t know how federal bail works being shocked not by something out of norms, but because their understanding of the norms is inaccurate.