Or for that matter, if they had said that the penalty was $0, and that the securities and sureties were sufficient?
Presumably, they'll never find out, so perhaps it's moot. But I feel like there's a legal distinction or rule I'm missing.
I would not assume they know that, or that that is true.
In fact, I think there is plenty of reason to think that:
(1) SBF has control of assets exceeding $250M (not untainted, and they would likely be subject to criminal forfeiture if he was convicted and they were identified, but in the case of flight...), and
(2) He would not necessarily be successful keeping them out of the reach of a default judgement in favor of the US government if he fled justice
> Or for that matter, if they had said that the penalty was $0, and that the securities and sureties were sufficient?
Security and sureties apply to the penalty, and are meaningless if it is zero.
The Court is not extending $250M of credit based on the collateral of the house.
The Court is assessing that the combination of the $250M penalty, the security given in the form of the claim on the house, the particular full sureties on the hook, the additional partial sureties on the hook for a lesser amount, and the nonfinancial conditions of bail are sufficient to adequately guarantee SBFs appearance (in part, based on the prosecution also accepting that.)