Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

coindesk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–157 of 157 posts

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#151

Post by loeg »

dragonwriter wrote: post #112
loeg wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His parents' house is the secured portion of the bond! It's $4M, which is a lot, but nothing compared to the unsecured $246M IOU.

Its not an IOU. Bail is not a loan. People often have the model that the premium paid to an arms-length bail agent is a finance charge on a loan, which is (1) not strictly true, because bail agents don't deposit the full bail with the court and get it back, (2) to the extent it is, while not accurate, a not-too-bad loose approximation of how doing business with a bail agent works, since a bail agent is a for-profit b…

> Its not an IOU. Bail is not a loan.

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.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#152

Post by scruple »

rootusrootus wrote: post #113
moralestapia wrote: post #32

"Yes, you read that right. Bankman-Fried walked out of court a free man by signing a piece of paper where he promised to pay the court $250 million if he decides to flee to another country with no extradition. This, of course, is totally absurd." Whew! This ought to piss off a LOT of people who couldn't afford to pay bails in the range of 1,000s-10,000s of dollars. 250M on a written IOU with (almost) no collateral to…

I expect that's because people keep thinking it's some kind of loan. If you can let go of that misunderstanding, then the process does start to make more sense.

It doesn't make sense to people who are too poor to post 5-figure bails. Unless you assume that wealthy people play by a different set of rules. Then it makes perfect sense.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#153

Post by tptacek »

BallinBige wrote: post #138
tptacek wrote: post #43

Ken White has a lawsplainer article about this bail thing coming out today; I'd assume it'll be more informative than what Coindesk comes up with.

link?

https://www.serioustrouble.show/p/how-did-sam-bankman-fried-...

    So: is the bail surprising? Yes. Is it a travesty of 
    justice? That’s a philosophical question. Is it legally 
    wrong, or outside the scope of what can or should happen 
    under the federal bail system? No.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#154

Post by maxbond »

fanso99 wrote: post #144
maxbond wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is he getting special treatment or do people not have detailed knowledge of how the criminal justice system operates and so are objecting to any perceived leniency at every step?

No, probably just special treatment: https://twitter.com/whalechart/status/1606293657518080001

That judge recused herself because their husband works at a law firm that advised FTX - note the husband did not work with FTX, other people in the same law firm did. We found out about it from the judge, to avoid the appearance of impropriety - not because any impropriety is alleged to have happened. This wasn't even the same judge who approved the bail. I'm not seeing the conspiracy.

This really seems to me like a Thursday in the criminal justice system, with every single step being scrutinized and cast into the worst possible light.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/judge-sbf-case-recuses-h...

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#155

Post by maxbond »

fanso99 wrote: post #141
maxbond wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intentionally? Are you proposing I have some kind of agenda, or just that I'm being willful in some way? This is my honest read of the situation, you're welcome to disagree. I have no agenda, only an opinion.

Intentional in the sense that you understand that you are exaggerating and still repeatedly do it. No one is calling for him to be flogged or beheaded in front of the White House. Jailing a fugitive, a flight risk financial scammer is not unreasonable. He was extremely wealthy at one point and so there is a chance he has enough money stashed somewhere to make fleeing a possibility. In addition, defrauding thousands i…

No, I am not exaggerating while secretly agreeing with you or something. That it may interpretation; you are free to disagree with it, but it's my sincere interpretation. Please avoid supposition about my mind state and intentions, if you want to know something about those subjects, just ask.

We deny bail to serial killers to avoid putting lives at risk, not because they're extra guilty. There's no indication SBF is a danger to anyone around him, and the conditions of his bail include counseling in case he's a danger to himself. Maybe he does have a house in Argentina with a stack of unmarked bills, who knows, but that is that the bond and the ankle monitor are for.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#156

Post by rootusrootus »

darth_avocado wrote: post #111
georgeecollins wrote: post #6

For anyone who is not aware, in the US you sometimes have to put up bail money to get out of jail because you are a flight risk or there is a danger you will commit further crimes (assuming you are guilty which is at that point unproven). There are services that do this as a bond, called a bail bond. You typically don't put up the full amount, maybe 5-10%. The rest of the risk of you not showing up for your trial is…

> is that it favors people with wealth Are you sure it is just the wealth though? People get denied bail for smaller offenses like stealing from a store, because you know, they look a certain way.

People who get denied bail for robbing a store are very likely not on their first pass through the system. It's the repeat offender part that gets them denied bail. More than likely on the first pass they got RoR. Or their theft was violent. It's not just dollar amounts that count.

Re: Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

#157

Post by rootusrootus »

scruple wrote: post #152
rootusrootus wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect that's because people keep thinking it's some kind of loan. If you can let go of that misunderstanding, then the process does start to make more sense.

It doesn't make sense to people who are too poor to post 5-figure bails. Unless you assume that wealthy people play by a different set of rules. Then it makes perfect sense.

Nobody ever said life was fair. You don't have to worry about bail if you don't commit crimes.
Post reply on HN