The defendant bail bond agency violated Cal. Code Regs., tit. 10, sec. 2079 by soliciting the plaintiff to make bail for her employee and co-defendant in a criminal possession of fireworks prosecution.  The cited section forbids bail bondsmen from soliciting bail from other than the accused and his or her immediate family unless that person has, without prior solicitation by the bail bondsman requested his services.  This decision holds that the section forbids a bail bondsman from soliciting a defendant to post bail for a co-defendant.  It also holds that the trial court properly found the bail bondsman had committed an unlawful business practice which violated the UCL and supported the trial court’s award of restitution (the bail bond premium) to plaintiff.  The “benefit” plaintiff supposedly received of a lessened chance that the co-defendant would rat on her did not make the restitution unjust.  That supposed consideration was as illegal as the solicitation of bail.