FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried has been sent to jail after a bail hearing in New York City. Federal Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued the order Friday.

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.

  • athos77@kbin.social
    2·
    1 year ago

    The New York government [pdf warning] says [emphasis added]:

    While the case is open, the defendant must obey all court orders and attend all
    scheduled court appearances. If not, the court may revoke bail, which means the
    bond is forfeited and you lose your collateral.

    • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
      8·
      1 year ago

      He wasn’t charged by NY state. The southern district of NY(SDNY) is a federal court. In federal court:

      When a defendant’s bail is revoked for failing to appear or violating a bail condition, any money put up for bond can be forfeited.

      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      His bail was revoked.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:

      The defendants bail terms are revoked.

      The defendant’s bail shall be forfeited.

      And the headline would read Bankman bail revoked and forfeited

      • athos77@kbin.social
        3·
        1 year ago

        Thank you for the clarification: I appreciate it, and I leave a more knowledgeable person than I was before!

        • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
          2·
          1 year ago

          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:

          No. Bail is collateral if a person fails to appear.

          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.