This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/22/nyregion/george-santos-bail.html

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Who Bailed George Santos Out? Court Is Set to Reveal the Mystery. George Santos Was Bailed Out by His Father and Aunt, Court Records Show
(about 3 hours later)
Of the many questions that surround Representative George Santos, one has recently taken center stage: Who guaranteed the $500,000 bond that allowed him to be released from federal custody last month?Of the many questions that surround Representative George Santos, one has recently taken center stage: Who guaranteed the $500,000 bond that allowed him to be released from federal custody last month?
Mr. Santos, 34, and his lawyer have for weeks attempted to thwart efforts to make public the names of his guarantors, at one point claiming to the court that Mr. Santos — who awaits trial on 13 federal criminal charges — would rather go to jail than have them revealed and subjected to public scrutiny. On Thursday, the mystery was solved, when the names of the two guarantors were unsealed and revealed to be two of his relatives: his father, Gercino dos Santos Jr., and his aunt, Elma Preven.
But the mystery surrounding Mr. Santos’s bond is expected to be resolved at noon Thursday, after a federal judge in the Eastern District of New York dismissed his appeal to keep the names sealed. The disclosure put an end to weeks of speculation and ended a legal fight in which Mr. Santos’s lawyer asserted that the congressman — who awaits trial on 13 federal criminal charges — would rather go to jail than have his guarantors subjected to public scrutiny.
Some of the wilder theories about the source of the bail funds were seemingly put to rest. In court filings opposing the disclosure of the so-called sureties, Mr. Santos’s lawyer, Joseph Murray, all but declared that Mr. Santos’s guarantors were relatives. But Mr. Santos, 34, opted not to ask to change the conditions of his bail after a federal judge in the Eastern District of New York dismissed his appeal to keep the names of his so-called sureties sealed.
Mr. Santos has asserted that his guarantors would withdraw their support if their identities were to be revealed, which would mean Mr. Santos would have until noon on Thursday to ask to change the conditions of his bond. Mr. dos Santos and Ms. Preven appeared in court last month to sign Mr. Santos’s bond, according to court documents. They did not have to put up cash or property to secure his release, but they agreed to be “personally responsible” for ensuring that he showed up in court and followed the conditions of his bond.
He may include a request to keep the newly withdrawn guarantors under seal. But any changes would require discussion with federal prosecutors and could include pretrial detention, though former prosecutors say it is unlikely. Both Mr. dos Santos and Ms. Preven live in New York, according to court records. When making contributions to Mr. Santos’s congressional campaigns, Ms. Preven said she was a mail handler for the Postal Service, and Mr. dos Santos said he worked as a painter or in construction, or noted that he was retired.
The identities of Mr. Santos’s guarantors attracted immense interest after reporting by The New York Times and other outlets exposed falsehoods in his biography and raised ethical questions regarding his personal and campaign finances. The identities of the guarantors attracted immense interest after reporting by The New York Times and other outlets exposed falsehoods in Mr. Santos’s biography and raised ethical questions regarding his personal and campaign finances.
Mr. Santos, who represents parts of Long Island and Queens, has admitted to lying about his education and work history. But he has not addressed other inconsistencies and has equivocated when asked about his business dealings and how they related to his political efforts.Mr. Santos, who represents parts of Long Island and Queens, has admitted to lying about his education and work history. But he has not addressed other inconsistencies and has equivocated when asked about his business dealings and how they related to his political efforts.
Federal prosecutors accused Mr. Santos of orchestrating a scheme to solicit political contributions that he used for personal expenses; of fraudulently receiving more than $24,000 in pandemic unemployment benefits while he was actually employed; and of knowingly making false statements on House financial disclosure forms.Federal prosecutors accused Mr. Santos of orchestrating a scheme to solicit political contributions that he used for personal expenses; of fraudulently receiving more than $24,000 in pandemic unemployment benefits while he was actually employed; and of knowingly making false statements on House financial disclosure forms.
Mr. Santos was charged with wire fraud, making unlawful monetary transactions and theft of public funds and pleaded not guilty to all charges. Mr. Santos was charged with wire fraud, making unlawful monetary transactions and theft of public funds, and pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Still, many questions remain. The House Ethics Committee, which has been investigating Mr. Santos for months, asked that he disclose the names of his sureties so it could determine whether the bail guarantee violated House rules regarding gifts. But the swirl of ethics concerns surrounding Mr. Santos, who is also being investigated by the House Ethics Committee, prompted a number of theories about the source of Mr. Santos’s bail funds.
Media organizations, including The Times, asked the court to release the guarantors’ identities, arguing that their names were a matter of public interest. The Ethics Committee, which opened an inquiry into Mr. Santos in March, asked that he disclose the names of his sureties so it could determine whether the bail guarantee violated House rules regarding gifts.
In attempting to block that effort, Mr. Murray shared with the court a letter he wrote to the Ethics Committee in which he argued that Mr. Santos had not violated its rules. News organizations, including The Times, asked the court to release the guarantors’ identities, arguing that their names were a matter of public interest.
He cited an exception that allows representatives to receive gifts or favors from immediate relatives, spouses, extended family or in-laws. In attempting to block that effort, Mr. Santos’s lawyer, Joseph Murray, all but declared that the guarantors were relatives.
He shared with the court a letter to the Ethics Committee in which he argued that Mr. Santos had not violated its rules, citing an exception that allows representatives to receive gifts or favors from immediate relatives, spouses, extended family or in-laws.
Mr. Murray was more explicit in a subsequent court filing, saying that Mr. Santos had “essentially publicly revealed that the suretors are family members and not lobbyists, donors or others seeking to exert influence over the defendant.”Mr. Murray was more explicit in a subsequent court filing, saying that Mr. Santos had “essentially publicly revealed that the suretors are family members and not lobbyists, donors or others seeking to exert influence over the defendant.”
Mr. Santos’s immediate family includes his younger sister, Tiffany, who donated thousands of dollars to her brother’s campaign despite owing tens of thousands of dollars in back rent in Queens. But Mr. Murray did not explicitly say how Mr. Santos’s guarantors were related to him, and in court filings, he maintained that those individuals were “likely to suffer great distress, may lose their jobs, and God forbid, may suffer physical injury” if their names were made public.
She also served as the president of a New York State PAC called Rise NY, which has ties to Mr. Santos and whose handling of funds has raised questions. There were originally three guarantors to secure Mr. Santos’s release, Mr. Murray said. But one of those people “had a change of heart” and withdrew their support, Mr. Murray wrote, implying that the reversal was related to the media scrutiny of Mr. Santos’s legal case.
Mr. Santos’s father, Gercino dos Santos Jr., lives in New York. In past contributions to his son’s congressional campaign, he listed his occupation as either a painter or in construction, or noted that he was retired. He added that Mr. Santos might be at risk of losing the other two guarantors if their identities were released.
Mr. Santos has also said that he married in November 2021, and has said his husband was a pharmacist named Matheus Gerard. Under his bond agreement, Mr. Santos, who is running for re-election, may travel between New York and Washington, D.C., but must obtain advance permission for other trips. The next hearing in Mr. Santos’s criminal case is scheduled for June 30.
Mr. Santos earlier this month lost his request to keep sealed the identities of the people who guaranteed his bond. He subsequently filed an appeal that was dismissed by Judge Joanna Seybert on Tuesday. The next hearing in his case is scheduled for June 30.
Nicholas Fandos contributed reporting.Nicholas Fandos contributed reporting.