DOJ-OGR-00002189.jpg
612 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
612 KB
Summary
This legal document argues against granting the defendant's proposed bail package by asserting she is a flight risk. The central claim is that the assets securing the bond originated from the defendant herself, who allegedly funneled her wealth to her husband over five years, thereby reducing his personal financial stake and incentive to prevent her from fleeing. The argument is supported by citing the defendant's financial resources, foreign ties, and legal precedent from the Second Circuit regarding bail conditions.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| defendant | defendant |
The subject of the document, whose bail package is being discussed. The text indicates the defendant is female.
|
| defendant's spouse | Spouse of the defendant |
Referred to as the recipient of the defendant's wealth and the proposed co-signer of her bail bond. Also referred to ...
|
| defendant's husband | Husband of the defendant |
Mentioned as the recipient of the defendant's funneled wealth and potentially having additional undisclosed assets.
|
| Boustani | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Boustani'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Its position at the original bail hearing is that the defendant has considerable financial resources.
|
| Court | judiciary |
The entity being addressed, which must decide whether to grant the defendant's proposed bail package.
|
| Second Circuit | judiciary |
A court whose legal holding regarding the Bail Reform Act is cited.
|
Timeline (2 events)
The original bail hearing where the Government argued the defendant has considerable financial resources.
Court
over the last five years
The defendant transferred the majority of her wealth to trusts and her husband.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in a quote from the Second Circuit regarding a two-tiered bail system.
|
Relationships (1)
The document identifies the person as 'her husband' and 'her spouse', and details financial transactions between them, specifically the defendant funneling her wealth into her husband's name.
Key Quotes (2)
"the Bail Reform Act does not permit a two-tiered bail system in which defendants of lesser means are detained pending trial while wealthy defendants are released to self-funded private jails,"Source
— Second Circuit
(A holding cited from the case United States v. Boustani to support an argument about bail conditions.)
DOJ-OGR-00002189.jpg
Quote #1
"a defendant may be released on such a condition"Source
— Second Circuit
(Part of a holding from the Second Circuit, mentioned in the context that the current case is not one of the 'rare cases' where this would apply.)
DOJ-OGR-00002189.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,282 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 100 Filed 12/18/20 Page 28 of 36
Setting aside whether the defendant’s spouse has additional assets beyond those included in the
financial report, the vast majority of the assets contained in the report itself apparently originated
with the defendant. (See Def. Ex. O at 10). Based on the report, it seems clear that the defendant
slowly funneled the majority of her wealth to trusts and into her husband’s name over the last five
years. As a result, if the Court were to grant the defendant’s proposed bail package and the
defendant were to flee, her spouse would primarily lose the money that the defendant gave him
rather than his own independent assets. In other words, were the defendant to flee, she would
largely be sacrificing her own money and assets, thereby limiting the moral suasion of her spouse
co-signing the bond. In sum, the defendant’s submission does not change the Government’s
position at the original bail hearing that the defendant has considerable financial resources, and
could live a comfortable life as a fugitive.
financial report, the vast majority of the assets contained in the report itself apparently originated
with the defendant. (See Def. Ex. O at 10). Based on the report, it seems clear that the defendant
slowly funneled the majority of her wealth to trusts and into her husband’s name over the last five
years. As a result, if the Court were to grant the defendant’s proposed bail package and the
defendant were to flee, her spouse would primarily lose the money that the defendant gave him
rather than his own independent assets. In other words, were the defendant to flee, she would
largely be sacrificing her own money and assets, thereby limiting the moral suasion of her spouse
co-signing the bond. In sum, the defendant’s submission does not change the Government’s
position at the original bail hearing that the defendant has considerable financial resources, and
could live a comfortable life as a fugitive.
The combination of all these factors, including the defendant’s foreign ties, demonstrated
ability to live in hiding, and financial resources, confirm that the defendant’s characteristics
continue to weigh in favor of detention. Given the multiplicity of factors supporting detention,
this is not one of the rare cases in which a private security company could conceivably be
considered as a bail condition. See United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79, 82 (2d Cir. 2019). The
Second Circuit has squarely held that “the Bail Reform Act does not permit a two-tiered bail
system in which defendants of lesser means are detained pending trial while wealthy defendants
are released to self-funded private jails,” and that “a defendant may be released on such a condition
ability to live in hiding, and financial resources, confirm that the defendant’s characteristics
continue to weigh in favor of detention. Given the multiplicity of factors supporting detention,
this is not one of the rare cases in which a private security company could conceivably be
considered as a bail condition. See United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79, 82 (2d Cir. 2019). The
Second Circuit has squarely held that “the Bail Reform Act does not permit a two-tiered bail
system in which defendants of lesser means are detained pending trial while wealthy defendants
are released to self-funded private jails,” and that “a defendant may be released on such a condition
[REDACTED]
The
Court need not resolve this question, however, because regardless of whether the defendant’s
husband may have additional undisclosed assets, as discussed herein, the key takeaway from the
financial report is that the vast majority of the spouse’s reported assets, upon which the proposed
bond is based, originated with the defendant, meaning he would not be losing his own money if
the defendant fled.
Court need not resolve this question, however, because regardless of whether the defendant’s
husband may have additional undisclosed assets, as discussed herein, the key takeaway from the
financial report is that the vast majority of the spouse’s reported assets, upon which the proposed
bond is based, originated with the defendant, meaning he would not be losing his own money if
the defendant fled.
25
DOJ-OGR-00002189
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document