Hacker News Reader

Comment by NullPrefix | Hacker News Reader

The fact that he managed to use a $4M house for a $250M bail is telling about what's going to happen in this case

This has been refuted over and over again by people who aren't entirely clueless.

What's even supposed to be the logic here? Where do you think that "$250M" figure comes? Why are you assigning some special meaning to it? It's pulled out of the ass of the very same judge who granted SBF bail.

Just saying "refuted" or "debunked" without actually refuting of debunking a claim makes it sound like you are trying to gaslight people. Would you care to provide these refutations that you speak of?

If you read the last line of my previous comment you will find a short-form refutation.

Here's a longer explanation by a former federal prosecutor, current criminal defence attorney https://www.serioustrouble.show/p/how-did-sam-bankman-fried-...

Thanks for providing the actual refutation that you speak of. The refutation just reiterates the fact that he did not have to pay a $250M bond. Your refutation also mentions that the house bond isn't actually posted yet. Regular crooks don't get the same treatment of walking out of jail before actually paying posting the bond money. Usually with a 10% fee for the bondsman. Do you think SBF will have to pay 10% to someone based on $4M of the house value or $250M?

> Regular crooks don't get the same treatment of walking out of jail before actually paying posting the bond money. Usually with a 10% fee for the bondsman

Bail bondsmen basically do not exist in federal courts.

But sure, regular crooks generally don't end up in federal courts. I think that's probably where this confusion stems from.

And the fact that he does not even own that $4M house. And the people who live in that house does not even own it completely either, but instead lease (or some other financial arrangement) the house, only as long as they are employed at the owner of that house.

I heard people speculating his parents may not own the house, but I have a hard time believing that would be agreeable to the court (unless perhaps Standford is one of the signatories that remains anonymous, and why would they be?). Has this been confirmed?

The only "news" source I found discussing this was also speculating, and was a right-wing political blog. Not a source I'm comfortable relying on (even if it had been a left-wing or centrist political blog). But I didn't look very hard; open to being corrected if someone has a good source on this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com