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 3 Version 4
George Santos Was Bailed Out by His Father and Aunt, Court Records Show George Santos Was Bailed Out by His Father and Aunt, Court Records Show
(about 2 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?
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.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.
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. The disclosure put an end to weeks of speculation that was heightened by Mr. Santos’s vehement opposition to making his guarantors’ names public, as they are in most cases.
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. dos Santos and Ms. Preven appeared in court last month to sign Mr. Santos’s bond, according to the unsealed court documents.
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. 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.
Property records show that Ms. Preven owns an apartment in the Jackson Heights neighborhood of Queens. When making contributions to Mr. Santos’s congressional campaigns in 2020 and 2021, she said that she worked as a mail handler for the Postal Service. Mr. Santos had said he wanted to keep their names secret to avoid exposing them to threats and harassment. News organizations, including The New York Times, asked the court to unseal their identities, arguing that they were a matter of public interest.
Mr. dos Santos — whom his son has described as a Brazilian immigrant of Angolan descent — also lives in Queens, according to campaign finance records. He said when making donations to his son that he worked as a painter or in construction, or noted that he was retired, though he told the court last month that he was employed. In one court filing, 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.
Neither Mr. dos Santos nor Ms. Preven immediately responded to requests for comment. But Mr. Santos, 34, remained out of custody and did not seek to release the guarantors from their obligations, even after a federal judge in the Eastern District of New York dismissed his appeal to keep their names sealed.
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. In her order, the judge, Joanna Seybert, said that Mr. Santos’s own actions had encouraged the frenzy, writing that his efforts to shield his guarantors’ identities, “notwithstanding the fact that he is aware their identities are not controversial, has simply created hysteria over what is, in actuality, a nonissue.”
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 said on Twitter that he and his family had “made peace” with the judge’s decision and asked reporters to respect his relatives’ privacy. Mr. dos Santos and Ms. Preven did not respond to requests for comment.
When making contributions to Mr. Santos’s congressional campaigns in 2020 and 2021, Ms. Preven said that she worked as a mail handler for the Postal Service. Property records show that she owns an apartment in the Jackson Heights neighborhood of Queens.
Mr. dos Santos — whom his son has described as a Brazilian immigrant of Angolan descent — also lives in Queens, according to campaign finance records. He said when making donations to his son that he worked as a painter or in construction, or that he was retired, though he told the court last month that he was employed.
The identities of the guarantors attracted immense interest after reporting by The Times and other outlets exposed falsehoods in Mr. Santos’s biography and raised ethical questions regarding his personal and campaign finances.
Mr. Santos, a Republican 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. He pleaded not guilty to all charges.
But the swirl of controversy around Mr. Santos, who is also being investigated by the House Ethics Committee, prompted a number of theories about the source of his bail funds. In addition to the criminal case, Mr. Santos is also facing an ongoing investigation by the House Ethics Committee. In a statement on Thursday, the committee’s top Democrat and Republican members said it was working on an “expeditious time frame” but also expanded its investigation to cover all of the charges in the federal indictment.
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. The committee asked Mr. Santos last month to disclose the names of his sureties so it could determine whether the bail guarantee violated House rules regarding gifts. House members are very rarely allowed to accept gifts — a broadly defined category — from people outside their families, to avoid undue influence or the appearance of it.
News organizations, including The Times, asked the court to release the guarantors’ identities, arguing that their names were a matter of public interest. Mr. Murray hinted at the guarantors’ identities in his response to the committee, saying that Mr. Santos had not violated ethics rules.
In attempting to block that effort, Mr. Santos’s lawyer, Joseph Murray, all but declared that the guarantors were relatives. Mr. Santos originally had a third guarantor, according to court documents. But that person, whose identity was not disclosed, “had a change of heart” and withdrew their support, Mr. Murray wrote in court filings, blaming the media attention surrounding Mr. Santos’s legal case.
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.”
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.
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.
He added that Mr. Santos might be at risk of losing the other two guarantors if their identities were released.
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 his criminal case is scheduled for June 30.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 his criminal case is scheduled for June 30.
Nicholas Fandos contributed reporting. Nicholas Fandos contributed reporting. Kirsten Noyes contributed research.