I've been thinking about the defendant using a bail bondsman and have brainstormed a few ideas. I'm no financial guru and I've never had to post bail, so these could very well be off-the-mark - feel free to shoot the ideas down!
Going with a bail bondsman means you only have to put up 10% instead of the full amount, which as a known cheapskate, might appeal to DT. But, you don't get that money back. "The bail bondsman will typically charge defendants a non-refundable fee of 10% of the amount of the bond." (Source below)
So, he's out $20K, which may be small beans to a so-called billionaire. But if he paid for himself, he would get the full amount back later (unless he flees). Seems like a better financial decision for someone with money to self-fund.
My hunch is he didn't want to put up any property as bail because that would require releasing financial records he doesn't want seen. Does he really own the properties? Is the financing wonky? Are there debts he doesn't want known? idk
A conspiracy theorist might conclude he plans to flee and that's why he used a bondsman, who will be stuck with the bill. I do
not think so.
My overall impression is that it was speedier and smoother to use a bail bondman while at the same time, allowed him not to have to provide personal financial information. That might be worth the $20K he lost.
I'm curious if the other well-to-do defendants used a bondsman or self-paid?
Again, these are guesses, and I'm not presenting as facts.
jmo
www.law.cornell.edu