DOJ-OGR-00002188.jpg
588 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (government response/opposition to bail)
File Size:
588 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a Government filing opposing bail (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It argues the defendant is a flight risk due to sophisticated financial maneuvering, specifically transferring millions of dollars into trusts for her spouse to hide her true wealth ($20M+) while claiming to have only $3.4M. It highlights a lack of candor with Pretrial Services regarding her assets and the ownership of her New Hampshire residence.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the bail hearing; accused of hiding assets and lack of candor. (Refers to Ghislaine Maxwell per Case 1:20-...
|
| Spouse / Husband | Family Member |
Recipient of transferred assets via trusts; brought significantly less wealth to the marriage.
|
| Pretrial Services | Government Agency Personnel |
Interviewed the defendant in July 2020; received misleading information regarding property ownership.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Pretrial Services |
Agency that assesses defendants before trial
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution/DOJ
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated in footer stamp)
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the property where the defendant was arrested and was residing.
|
Relationships (2)
Defendant transferred millions to spouse via trusts; huge disparity in assets brought to marriage ($20M vs $200k).
Defendant provided information to Pretrial Services; Government claims she lacked candor with them.
Key Quotes (4)
"The financial report further shows that the defendant apparently spent the last five years moving the majority of her assets out of her name by funneling them through trusts to her spouse."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002188.jpg
Quote #1
"The defendant’s lack of candor does not inspire confidence that she can be trusted to comply with bail conditions."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002188.jpg
Quote #2
"she was 'just able to stay there.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002188.jpg
Quote #3
"the defendant originally brought more than $20 million to her marriage, but that her husband brought only $200,000."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002188.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,218 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 100 Filed 12/18/20 Page 27 of 36
basis, in addition to their substantial assets. The financial report submitted by the defense is also
careful to note that it does not account for any possible income from inheritances. (Def. Ex. O at
5). [REDACTED]
[REDACTED].
careful to note that it does not account for any possible income from inheritances. (Def. Ex. O at
5). [REDACTED]
[REDACTED].
The financial report further shows that the defendant apparently spent the last five years
moving the majority of her assets out of her name by funneling them through trusts to her spouse.
That pattern suggests the defendant has used the process of transferring assets as a means to hide
her true wealth. As the Renewed Bail Application points out, the defendant currently has
approximately $3.4 million worth of assets held in her own name, which is close to the amount of
wealth she told Pretrial Services she possessed in July 2020. Importantly, though, that number
omits the millions of dollars of assets that she has transferred from her name through trust accounts
to her spouse, including funds that were used to purchase the New Hampshire property where the
defendant was residing when she was arrested.⁸ This confirms that the Government was right to
be concerned that the defendant had refused to identify her spouse or his assets to Pretrial Services.
That practice further demonstrates the defendant’s sophistication in hiding her assets and
maintaining assets that are under her control in other names.
moving the majority of her assets out of her name by funneling them through trusts to her spouse.
That pattern suggests the defendant has used the process of transferring assets as a means to hide
her true wealth. As the Renewed Bail Application points out, the defendant currently has
approximately $3.4 million worth of assets held in her own name, which is close to the amount of
wealth she told Pretrial Services she possessed in July 2020. Importantly, though, that number
omits the millions of dollars of assets that she has transferred from her name through trust accounts
to her spouse, including funds that were used to purchase the New Hampshire property where the
defendant was residing when she was arrested.⁸ This confirms that the Government was right to
be concerned that the defendant had refused to identify her spouse or his assets to Pretrial Services.
That practice further demonstrates the defendant’s sophistication in hiding her assets and
maintaining assets that are under her control in other names.
In this vein, the financial report suggests that the defendant originally brought more than
$20 million to her marriage, but that her husband brought only $200,000.⁹ (See Def. Ex. O at 10).
$20 million to her marriage, but that her husband brought only $200,000.⁹ (See Def. Ex. O at 10).
__________________________________________________________________
⁸ On this score, it bears noting that that defendant told Pretrial Services that the property was owned
by a corporation, and that she was “just able to stay there.” (Pretrial Services Report at 2). The
defendant’s lack of candor does not inspire confidence that she can be trusted to comply with bail
conditions.
⁸ On this score, it bears noting that that defendant told Pretrial Services that the property was owned
by a corporation, and that she was “just able to stay there.” (Pretrial Services Report at 2). The
defendant’s lack of candor does not inspire confidence that she can be trusted to comply with bail
conditions.
⁹ The Government has not been able to verify this financial information—in part because the
defense has declined to provide the Government with the spouse’s current banking information—
but [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
defense has declined to provide the Government with the spouse’s current banking information—
but [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
24
DOJ-OGR-00002188
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document