Of the many questions that surround Rep. 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?

The mystery was solved today 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 Santos’ lawyer asserted that Santos — who awaits trial on 13 federal criminal charges — would rather go to jail than have his guarantors subjected to public scrutiny.

But 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.

Dos Santos and Preven appeared in court last month to sign Santos’ 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.

Both dos Santos and Preven live in New York, according to court records. When making contributions to Santos’ congressional campaigns, Preven said she was a mail handler for the Postal Service, and dos Santos said he worked as a painter or in construction, or noted that he was retired.

The identities of the guarantors attracted immense interest after reporting by The New York Times and other outlets exposed falsehoods in Santos’ biography and raised ethical questions regarding his personal and campaign finances.

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 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.

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 ethics concerns surrounding Santos, who is also being investigated by the House Ethics Committee, prompted a number of theories about the source of Santos’ bail funds.

News organizations, including the Times, asked the court to release the guarantors’ identities, arguing that their names were a matter of public interest.

In attempting to block that effort, Santos’ 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 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.

Murray was more explicit in a subsequent court filing, saying that 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 Murray did not explicitly say how Santos’ 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 Santos’ release, Murray said. But one of those people “had a change of heart” and withdrew their support, Murray wrote, implying that the reversal was related to the media scrutiny of Santos’ legal case.

He added that Santos might be at risk of losing the other two guarantors if their identities were released.

Under his bond agreement, Santos, who is running for reelection, may travel between New York and Washington, D.C., but must obtain advance permission for other trips. The next hearing in Santos’ criminal case is scheduled for June 30.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

© 2023 The New York Times Company