All the online dictionaries that I've consulted, Oxford, Merriam-Webster, etc, list "abscond" as an intransitive verb, a verb that does not take an object. Not unless with the help of a preposition such as "with" and "from". Here are the intransitive uses of the verb as shown in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, :
She absconded (=escaped) from every children’s home they placed her in.
He absconded (=left secretly) with the company funds.
That said, I was reading this Huffington Post article on grammar titled "Getting Grammatical: What's the Big Deal With the Passive Voice?" by David Kudler, an "expert" on writing, I guess.
There, I came across this use of "abscond" in the passive voice:
These folks loved the passive voice, for the same reason that less-experienced writers everywhere do: they thought that, because it’s more complicated, it would sound more sophisticated or official. In fact, the opposite is the case. My students would write things like The suspect was apprehended by this officer instead of I arrested her or The vehicle which had been absconded with was pursued by me in my police vehicle instead of I followed the stolen Ford Taurus in my police car. Honest to goodness -- they really did write this stuff. If you were a jury or a supervisor, which would you find clearer and more effective?
In context, I don't think the author intended the example sentence having abscond to be ungrammatical, because he wanted it to be grammatical but less clear and less effective than the active-voice counterpart.
At first, I thought that the passive was possible here because the phrase "abscond with" acted as a single unit and took the object "which". So I thought that "with" there might not be left out.
But then, I did some research and, to my surprise, found both AmE and BrE uses of "abscond" in the passive voice without "with" or "from" following it.
A separate investigation into how the children were absconded Sept. 19 from Forestdale Child Agency in Queens during a supervised visit is still continuing. (From CBS New York, "Mom Accused Of Abducting 8 Children Tells Her Side Of The Story")
However, Stella McCartney (recipient of the Red Carpet Award) and 40-year-old Stella Tennant (a worthy Model of the Year whose three-decade career has just enjoyed one of its busiest years) had gone missing in action, lost somewhere on the journey from the ceremony to the party. By the time we located them (no, McCartney hadn't been absconded by the rock-and-roll set: "My days of running off with Kate Moss are over," she promised), dinner had been served. (From Telegraph, "British Fashion Award 2011: Fashion's most talented line-up in a generation")
(1) In the first use of the word (Huffington Post), is "with" obligatory?
(2) I don't know if the latter two uses are simply editing mistakes wherein the editor mistakenly omitted "with". Or are these simply legitimate uses that have yet to show up in some of the dictionaries that I consulted?