Did Sam Bankman-Fried Get Off Easy? Legal Experts Question $250 Million Bond Terms

The post Did Sam Bankman-Fried Get Off Easy? Legal Experts Question $250 Million Bond Terms appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News

In a shocking turn of events, it has been revealed that the bail terms set for Sam Bankman-Fried, the cryptocurrency billionaire and founder of FTX and Alameda, are ridiculous and make no sense. James Murphy, a securities lawyer and founder of Ludlow Street Advisors, has criticized the terms, stating that they are “ludicrous” and a “joke.” Murphy argues that there was no real money used for Bankman-Fried’s bond, only the promise of it should he flee the country.

Bankman-Fried was arrested in December on a number of charges, including a “global scheme to deceive and defraud customers and lenders.” He was released on a $250 million bond co-signed by his parents, who put up their home in Palo Alto as collateral.

However, Murphy has revealed that the agreement made by his parents to pay $250 million should Bankman-Fried decide to flee the U.S. is not what it seems, as they “don’t have the assets nearly in that amount, as far as we know.”

Judge Reveals Co-Signers of Sam Bankman-Fried’s $250 Million Bond

On Wednesday, it was disclosed that two additional bond co-signers, Stanford University’s Andreas Paepcke and Larry Kramer, had agreed to pay $200,000 and $500,000, respectively. However, Murphy argues that only if Bankman-Fried decided to skip town would “they have to write a check.” Murphy questions whether the terms of Bankman-Fried’s bond are in fact substantial, as “none of that happened” in terms of putting up property assets or going to a bail bondsman.

Sabino defends the bond

Anthony Michael Sabino, a co-founder of law firm Sabino & Sabino P.C., has argued that there is no bail bond entity in the U.S. that is “is going to put up any bond, let alone [for] someone of this colossal nature, unless they have in hand either cash or a mortgage on a piece of real estate or somebody’s jewelry.” He argues that if no money was placed upfront, bond issuers would be taking on further risks.

Despite Sabino’s defense of the bond terms, Murphy remains shocked, stating that he has “never seen anything this lenient in a situation where someone has millions of victims.” He questions why federal prosecutors continue to be lenient towards Bankman-Fried, as he has been “pushing the envelope in terms of what he can do.”

The terms of Bankman-Fried’s bond may soon be changing, as federal prosecutors have requested that he be prevented from using his cell phone and accessing the internet except under certain circumstances. This new condition was not part of his original bail agreement, leaving many to question the seriousness of the charges against Bankman-Fried.