That still doesn't say how they got to 250m. Is it the norm to set the amount to an incredibly large number that neither the defendant or the family has any hope to pay? Or does the judge expect 250m to be in the realm of what he can pay?
You don’t pay $250M, you borrow that amount providing some collateral proportional to your risk of flight. It is basically an insurance policy with $250M payoff. Or an option.
> You don’t pay $250M, you borrow that amount providing some collateral proportional to your risk of flight.
No, you don't. Even with a fully secured bail bond (which is not a norm in all US jurisdictions), you (or someone acting as your surety) provides the court with a legal claim on property with a value at least equal to the bail amount. When (as is the norm in many syate systems) you engage a bail agent as a surety, the fee may be risk sensitive, or it may be a fixed percentage set by law, depending on state law.
I understand but you need to be able to borrow $250m. I can't borrow 250m. No one is going to allow me to borrow 250m unless I have some serious assets, which is not what the article suggests.
> I understand but you need to be able to borrow $250m.
No, you just have to have the court believe the combination of penalty, security, sureties, and non-financial conditions is sufficient to assure appearance.
In some state systems, the court may be constrained to only accept full secured bond when there is a penalty amount (or, if not so constrained, may have a practice of generally doing so), but that is absolutely not a requirement or the normal practice in the federal system.
