The Royal Consulate of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia v Pullan

Consulate sought extraordinary relief arguing the cash bail it paid for an accused Saudi citizen was improperly forfeited for lack of notice and incorrect findings of willfulness. The Court affirmed. It held that the provider of cash bond, unlike a surety who posts bond, is not entitled to any notice as the provider does not undertake any personal responsibility to secure the appearance of the defendant, courts have no duty to identify the true owner of cash posted as bail and, in any event, Consulate is not a surety under Utah statutes as it failed to file the required affidavit of net worth and never submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the district court. The challenge to willfulness was dismissed for lack of standing as Consulate is not a party to the criminal action and is not a surety and this had no right to notice.