this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
247 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10188 readers
614 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What? What are you talking about? That's not how bail works. He doesn't need 200k.
The amount of your bail is the amount you owe if you don't appear in court, not the amount of the deposit, i.e. the amount of cash you need on hand. That's 10% of the total. If you have a 200k bail amount, you need 20 grand on hand, not 200 grand.
Hmm, that's not how they work in my state. You either pay 100% of the bail yourself, or you pay 10% to a bondsman and they cover the other 90%.
Doesn't this make her point even more? Had to use a bondsman for 20k but he's super rich? Yiiikes
Maybe he can get more than a 10% return on the 200k over the time the bond money is to be locked?
That's a valid point I hadn't considered. Based on a cursory look at how bail bond works, if you go with a bondsman you're out a certain amount regardless if you show up to court or not.
So if he paid the 200k he'd get almost all of it back after court, minus whatever processing fees the court has. If he goes with the bondsman he forks over 10% and the bondsman covers the other 90%, but he would get nothing back after court. The bondsman gets the full refund and keeps it all.
I can't imagine the return on that would move the needle much for someone as "rich" as he is. I don't know though, and I'll fully admit this is pure speculation.
It's hard to tell how rich he is exactly... but I bet we're not thinking enough like a con man, and missing some angle.
Maybe he could start a fundraiser because of the 200K, but pay only 20K to a bondsman. Maybe his 20K cheque, will bounce back. Maybe his joke about fleeing to Russia, was no joke at all. Maybe going through a bondsman, saved him some paperwork, or time. Maybe he expects to be indicted on more charges, and have to post bond several more times... 10 times like this would be the difference between 200K for a bondsman, vs. locking up 2M. Maybe he found a sympathizer to post the 200K, and charge him 0%.
I like where your head's at. I'm gonna go with the expecting more indictments angle paired with not being as rich/liquid as he'd like everyone to believe. What an unavoidable situation he's found himself in.