- 10 -
With respect to the U.S. District Court account, petitioner
has not adduced evidence regarding the terms under which amounts
were required to be deposited for bonds written for defendants in
U.S. District Court. In his opening statement, petitioner’s
counsel indicated that deposits equal to 100 percent of the face
amount of the bond were required. Presumably, these amounts were
either returned to petitioner when the defendant satisfactorily
appeared or forfeited if he did not. In either case, the
deposited amounts would inure to petitioner’s benefit. Because
petitioner has not come forward with the terms of the U.S.
District Court bonding arrangements, he has failed to carry his
burden of proving respondent’s determination erroneous.
In-House Account
The in-house account appears, in part, to be an effort by
petitioner to set up a reserve for paying potential bond
forfeitures. In other words, it acts, in part, as a reserve
against contingent liability. The funds in the in-house account
were ultimately disbursed solely for petitioner’s benefit: To
satisfy his obligations by paying bond forfeitures or increasing
the amounts on deposit in the Charleston County Court or the U.S.
District Court accounts; to pay his business expenses; or to pay
himself a “salary”. As with the Charleston County Court account
and presumably with the U.S. District Court account, only two
things could happen to the funds in the in-house account: They
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011