Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-151 (2025)

Maximum commission or fee. Reports to commissioner. Audits

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) No such professional bondsman shall charge for his commission or fee more than fifty dollars for the amount of bail furnished by him up to five hundred dollars, nor more than ten per cent of the amount of bail furnished by him from five hundred dollars up to five thousand dollars, nor more than seven per cent of the amount of bail furnished by him on sums in excess of five thousand dollars. When a professional bondsman has furnished bail to an accused in a criminal proceeding, the fee which he receives therefor shall be credited on account of his fee for any subsequent bail in an increased amount which he may furnish for the same person in the same criminal proceeding; but this provision shall not apply to bail furnished on appeal of a conviction or bindover of an accused.

(b) Not later than February 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, each professional bondsman licensed under the provisions of this chapter shall, on forms furnished by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection, report to said commissioner in detail the names of the persons for whom such bondsman has become surety during the year ended December thirty-first preceding, with the date, the amount of bond and the fee charged and paid and such further information as said commissioner requires. Not later than March 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, the commissioner shall randomly select three professional bondsmen whose books and records shall be subject to an audit by the commissioner for compliance with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section.

(1949 Rev., S. 3735; 1969, P.A. 206; P.A. 77-614, S. 486, 610; P.A. 83-163; P.A. 86-183; P.A. 11-51, S. 134; P.A. 24-26, S. 1.)

History: 1969 act increased bondsman's commission from $5 to $20 on bail amounts up to $300, rather than $100, from 5% to 7% for changed $300 lower range up to $5,000 and from 2.5% to 5% for amounts exceeding $5,000; P.A. 77-614 replaced commissioner of state police with commissioner of public safety, effective January 1, 1979; P.A. 83-163 increased bondsman's commission from a maximum of 7% to a maximum of 10% for amounts of bail furnished from $300 up to $5,000; P.A. 86-183 increased maximum fee from $20 to $50 on bail up to $500, 10% of amount of bail from $500 to $5,000 and changed percentage from 5% to 7% of amount of bail in excess of $5,000; pursuant to P.A. 11-51, “Commissioner of Public Safety” was changed editorially by the Revisors to “Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection”, effective July 1, 2011; P.A. 24-26 inserted Subsec. designators (a) and (b), in Subsec. (b) changed provision re required submission of report annually during the month of January to not later than February 1, 2025, and annually thereafter and added provision re audits, effective July 1, 2024.

Cited. 147 C. 1.

Statute upheld as constitutional; defendant, after accepting license under statute and acting thereunder, cannot then claim statute is unconstitutional. 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 83.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1959–1963 · leading case: State v. Fishman, 194 A.2d 725 (Conn. App. Ct. 1963).
State v. Fishman, 194 A.2d 725 (Conn. App. Ct. 1963). “The defendant, a professional bondsman, in a trial to the court was found guilty on nine counts of charging commissions or fees as a professional bondsman in excess of the maximum limits prescribed by § 29-151 of the General Statutes. On his appeal, he admits the facts of…”
Grillo v. Cannistraro, 155 A.2d 919 (Conn. 1959). “The plaintiff told the defendant that if such a guarantee was given he would charge only $150 instead of his usual fee of $200, the maximum permitted under § 29-151 of the General Statutes. Soon after his conversation with the plaintiff, the defendant went to the home of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.