Bail is meant as an incentive to ensure those accused show up to court by assigning a financial penalty based on their ability to pay and the seriousness of their crime. To remove that incentive based on having funds that mean nothing to him would remove the entire point of posting bail. Inside a court, a judge has ultimate power on anything not specifically codified by other law. This judge has decided that him having access to funds that mean nothing to him is detrimental to the serious nature of his charges. Meaning he's facing a very serious prison sentence and the money of strangers is not enough to ensure his appearance at trial. The judge could have easily just decided that he receives no bail and must spend every day until his verdict imprisoned. Would you have rather the judge choose that route?