State v. Paul, 95 Wn. App. 775 (1999).  http://courts.mrsc.org/appellate/095wnapp/095wnapp0775.htm

Anita Paul was required to pay criminal restitution.  When she failed to make the restitution payments she was arrested and brought before the Superior Court.  Previously, the defendant’s family had posted her entire bail amount in cash.  At the hearing the State suggested that the court forfeit the bail and use that for the restitution.

“A person who puts up a bond is a surety who guarantees the appearance of the accused. In re Marriage of Bralley, 70 Wn. App. 646, 652-53, 855 P.2d 1174 (1993).” State v. Paul, 95 Wn. App. 775, 777 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).

When the entire amount of bail is put up in cash, there is no need for a surety. The cash itself serves to guarantee the appearance of the accused. The person who puts up the cash is not a bondsman, therefore RCW 10.19 does not apply. If the defendant does not appear, the cash bail is forfeited. If the defendant is subsequently apprehended, the court has the discretion to vacate the bail forfeiture or not. Bralley, 70 Wn. App. at 651. The cash is conclusively presumed to belong to the defendant, regardless of who produced it and holds a receipt. Id. at 655. State v. Paul, 95 Wn. App. 775, 778 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999)

In a criminal case, the sole purpose of bail is to ensure the appearance of the accused. When the accused appears, the conditions of the bail have been fulfilled, and the court must give the money back. State v. Ransom, 34 Wn. App. 819, 822-24, 664 P.2d 521 (1983). Bail is not a revenue measure in lieu of fine. Id. at 822; State v. Heslin, 63 Wn.2d 957, 960, 389 P.2d 892 (1964); State v. O’Day, 36 Wn.2d 146, 159, 216 P.2d 732 (1950); State v. Jackschitz, 76 Wn. 253, 255, 136 P. 132 (1913).

The purpose of an appearance bond is to assure the appearance of the defendant.  The Court can’t then change it into a performance bond and require performance.