FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried was sent to jail Friday to await trial after a bail hearing for the fallen cryptocurrency wiz left a judge convinced that he had repeatedly tried to influence witnesses against him.
FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried was sent to jail Friday to await trial after a bail hearing for the fallen cryptocurrency wiz left a judge convinced that he had repeatedly tried to influence witnesses against him.
No. Bail is collateral if a person fails to appear. Bail term revocation and bail bond forfeiture are entirely different things.
The New York government [pdf warning] says [emphasis added]:
He wasn’t charged by NY state. The southern district of NY(SDNY) is a federal court. In federal court:
Though they can both happen for the same reasons, they are separate things, and one doesn’t happen automatically because of the other.
In this case:
His bail was revoked. His bail was not forfeited.
I don’t think in any state bail revocation makes bail forfeiture automatic. They’re separate actions.
The court would make two separate rulings:
And the headline would read Bankman bail revoked and forfeited
Thank you for the clarification: I appreciate it, and I leave a more knowledgeable person than I was before!
Good natured discussion is contagious. Thank you for being so chill.
I should have mentioned this too::
To be fair, this statement I made incorrect in a way:
It’s loosely (or more so) implies something that is somewhat incorrect. In a way, implies that bail is only for collateral. And that’s not true either. As you mentioned. The fact that bail can be forfeited for numerous things all lends a secondary purpose of insuring that not only they appear, but also comply with other terms of their bail.
I didn’t mean to imply that was it’s only purpose. I meant to imply it was the primarily purpose, but most importantly I meant to make a distinction between revocation and forfeiture.