024.pdf

LAW OFFICE OF
MARC FERNICH
MARC FERNICH maf@fernichlaw.com
ALSO ADMITTED IN MASSACHUSETTS
810 SEVENTH AVENUE, SUITE 620
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019
212-446-2346
FAX: 212-459-2299
www.fernichlaw.com
July 16, 2019
BY ECF
Hon. Richard M. Berman
USDJ-SDNY
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007
Re: US v. Epstein, 19 CR 490 (SDNY)
Dear Judge Berman:
In response to requests from the Court and certain arguments made
yesterday by the government, we write to supplement Jeffrey Epstein’s
request for bail.
First, make no mistake about the crux of the government’s
detention argument and its necessary implications. Stripped to its core,
the government’s position – as urged in its letters and echoed again
yesterday – distills to this: the nominally rebuttable remand
presumption (connected with 18 USC § 1591 charges)1 plus Epstein’s

1 To be clear, Epstein contends that § 1591 and the concomitant remand presumption
do not contemplate or cover the core conduct at issue here: performing sexual
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 24 Filed 07/16/19 Page 1 of 9

Hon. Richard M. Berman
July 16, 2019
Page 2
wealth creates an irrebuttable presumption whereby no condition(s) can
reasonably assure personal appearance or protect the public. The Court
should reject the government’s misguided effort to effectively create a per
se rule.2 Indeed, for the government, there’s literally nothing a person of
Epstein’s means could say, do or pledge to rebut the operative
presumption and make himself eligible for release.

massages for money. See Fierro v. Taylor, No. 11-CV8573, 2012 WL 13042630, at *3
(SDNY July 2, 2012) (holding that purchasers of sex from minors fall outside § 1591’s
ambit).
2 E.g., 7/15/19 Tr. 11 (“even if the defense were able at some point to rebut the
presumption by providing some more information, there simply is no way that they
can meet the standard here”); 7/12/19 Ltr. 5 (“even assuming the defendant’s assets
are presently in the United States, nothing … would prevent the defendant from
transferring liquid assets out of the country quickly and in anticipation of flight or
relocation. The defendant is an incredibly sophisticated financial actor with decades
of experience in the industry and significant ties to financial institutions and actors
around the world. He could easily transfer funds and holdings on a moment’s [notice]
to places where the [g]overnment would never find them so as to ensure he could live
comfortably while a fugitive.”); id. (“even were the defendant to sacrifice literally all
of his current assets, there is every indication that he would immediately be able to
resume making … tens of millions of dollars per year outside of the United States….
[T]here would be little to stop the defendant from fleeing, transferring his unknown
assets abroad, and then continuing to … earn his vast wealth from a computer
terminal beyond the reach of extradition.”) (footnote omitted); id. 7 (“the notion that
any individual co-signer could meaningfully secure a bond for this defendant strains
credulity”).
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 24 Filed 07/16/19 Page 2 of 9

Hon. Richard M. Berman
July 16, 2019
Page 3
That cannot be the law. Such a construction turns the statute’s
plain text – expressly providing that the presumption is “[s]ubject to
rebuttal,” and otherwise mandating bail on the “least restrictive”
conditions that reasonably assure the defendant’s presence and
community safety – on its head. It defies legislative intent. It thwarts the
presumption of innocence. And it violates the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth
amendment rights to due process, counsel, a defense and equal
protection, not to mention the Eighth Amendment guarantee of bail – all
based on a suspect if not invidious classification. To be sure, wealthy
defendants do not deserve preferential treatment. But they certainly
shouldn’t be singled out for worse treatment – in effect, categorically
disqualified from bail, at least in a presumption case – on the basis of
their net worth.
Second, it bears emphasis that the presumption is hardly an
insurmountable bar to release in a § 1591 prosecution.3 To the contrary,

3 E.g., US v. Brinson, No. 13-CR-04-GKF, 2013 WL 11305792 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 8,
2013); US v. Afyare, No. 3:10-cr-00260, 2011 WL 1397820 (M.D. Tenn. April 13, 2011);
US v. Gardner, 523 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 24 Filed 07/16/19 Page 3 of 9

Hon. Richard M. Berman
July 16, 2019
Page 4
courts have determined that there are suitable conditions under which
defendants accused of trafficking minors are bailed – notwithstanding
the remand presumption.
Third, as apparent from Epstein’s initial financial disclosure, his
finances are fairly complex. It would be impossible for Epstein – given,
among other impediments, his detention, inability to quickly access
pertinent records, and inability to quickly make a precise valuation of
particular assets – to provide a sufficient financial statement by the
Court’s 5 pm deadline. Epstein certainly recognizes the Court’s request
for further transparency and is committed to providing a complete and
accurate disclosure. Accordingly, we propose that the Court preliminarily
accept the initial disclosure proffered last Friday and, if intending to
grant bail, include a release condition directing Epstein to tender a
comprehensive forensic accounting of his finances as expeditiously as
practicable. Joel Podgor, Partner Emeritus at prominent Manhattan
accounting firm Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP, has agreed to conduct
the forensic investigation and prepare a report rapidly. As counsel said
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 24 Filed 07/16/19 Page 4 of 9

Hon. Richard M. Berman
July 16, 2019
Page 5
during the July 15 argument, Epstein will agree to any monetary
condition – consistent with his Sixth Amendment need to retain counsel
and pay ordinary expenses, which, at the Court’s discretion, could be
subject to supervision by a Court-appointed trustee – that collateralizes
his assets as a condition of release.
Fourth, to the extent the government complains Epstein lacks
meaningful domestic ties, we clarify and emphasize that his brother
Mark, a U.S. resident, stands prepared to co-sign and secure a release
bond in the full amount of his “own net worth,”4 which exceeds $100
million – tangible proof of his certainty that Epstein will appear as
necessary.
Fifth, in response to the Court’s inquiry about Epstein’s New
Mexico registration status, the state’s Public Safety Department formally
advised in August 2010 that “you are not required to register with the
State of New Mexico … for your 2008 Florida conviction of Procuring
Person Under 18 for Prostitution.” Nonetheless, in an abundance of

4 7/12/19 Ltr. 6 (footnote omitted).
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 24 Filed 07/16/19 Page 5 of 9

Hon. Richard M. Berman
July 16, 2019
Page 6
caution and as an extra precaution, Epstein consistently notified the
appropriate New Mexico official, Detective Deborah Anaya, when he
spent any time at his residence there. (The underlying documents are
available upon request.)
Sixth, though some studies may well indicate that sex offender
recidivism rates “actually go[] up at 15 years,” as Your Honor suggested
from the bench,5 others reach the opposite conclusion. For example, a
respected study found that the relapse risk drops substantially the longer
a person remains sex-offense free in the community. 6 Another
determined that it’s mistaken to think of anyone who’s been offense-free
for 15 years as high-risk.7

5 7/15/19 Tr. 34.
6 Hanson et al., “High-Risk Sex Offenders May Not Be High Risk Forever,” Journal
of Interpersonal Violence (March 2014),
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261069441_High Risk_Sex_Offenders_May_Not_Be_High_Risk_Forever.
7 Ira Mark & Tara Ellman, “’Frightening and High’: The Supreme Court’s Crucial
Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics” (2015). Constitutional Commentary. 419.
https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/419.
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 24 Filed 07/16/19 Page 6 of 9

Hon. Richard M. Berman
July 16, 2019
Page 7
Seventh, to the extent third-party counsel (Mr. Boies) speculated
that the November 28 and December 3, 2018 payments8 were made to
“witnesses who were cooperating with us”9 in civil litigation, he is wrong.
As explained in Court, the recipients were “long-time [Epstein] friends
and employees”10 – not putative victims – and they never cooperated
with Mr. Boies. To the contrary, each invoked the Fifth Amendment and
refused to testify when civilly deposed, respectively, in prior New York
federal and Florida state civil proceedings. Subject to the protective
orders in these proceedings, we would be pleased to provide relevant
deposition transcripts.
Eighth, as for the Austrian passport the government trumpets, it
expired 32 years ago. And the government offers nothing to suggest – and
certainly no evidence – that Epstein ever used it. In any case, Epstein –
an affluent member of the Jewish faith – acquired the passport in the

8 7/12/19 Ltr. 11.
9 7/15/19 Tr. 70-71.
10 Ibid. 69.
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 24 Filed 07/16/19 Page 7 of 9

Hon. Richard M. Berman
July 16, 2019
Page 8
1980s, when hijackings were prevalent, in connection to Middle East
travel. The passport was for personal protection in the event of travel to
dangerous areas, only to be presented to potential kidnapers, hijackers
or terrorists should violent episodes occur.
Ninth, the Court is undoubtedly aware of the highly charged
context surrounding this prosecution. In November 2018, media reports
suggested that Epstein received a plea deal that amounted to a “slap on
the wrist.” Putting aside the robust negotiations leading to the non prosecution agreement and the prison sentence Epstein completed,
there’s no denying that although certain witnesses through their
attorney representatives,11 the media – e.g., The Miami Herald – and the
public were all clamoring for his re-prosecution, Epstein traveled
extensively over these eight months and invariably returned to the
United States. That inescapable reality emphatically proves he won’t flee
and entitles him to release – on any and all conditions the Court deems
appropriate.

11 See, e.g., Doe v. US, CV 807-36 (SD Fla.).
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 24 Filed 07/16/19 Page 8 of 9

Hon. Richard M. Berman
July 16, 2019
Page 9
We thank the Court for its consideration and would be pleased to
provide any additional information at Thursday’s appearance.
Respectfully,
/s/
Marc Fernich
Martin Weinberg
Reid Weingarten
cc: All Counsel (ECF)
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 24 Filed 07/16/19 Page 9 of 9