That’s a valid point I hadn’t considered. Based on a cursory look at how bail bond works, if you go with a bondsman you’re out a certain amount regardless if you show up to court or not.
So if he paid the 200k he’d get almost all of it back after court, minus whatever processing fees the court has. If he goes with the bondsman he forks over 10% and the bondsman covers the other 90%, but he would get nothing back after court. The bondsman gets the full refund and keeps it all.
I can’t imagine the return on that would move the needle much for someone as “rich” as he is. I don’t know though, and I’ll fully admit this is pure speculation.
It’s hard to tell how rich he is exactly… but I bet we’re not thinking enough like a con man, and missing some angle.
Maybe he could start a fundraiser because of the 200K, but pay only 20K to a bondsman. Maybe his 20K cheque, will bounce back. Maybe his joke about fleeing to Russia, was no joke at all. Maybe going through a bondsman, saved him some paperwork, or time. Maybe he expects to be indicted on more charges, and have to post bond several more times… 10 times like this would be the difference between 200K for a bondsman, vs. locking up 2M. Maybe he found a sympathizer to post the 200K, and charge him 0%.
