DOJ-OGR-00002774.jpg
737 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
737 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court's opinion denying a defendant's third motion for bail. The court determines that the defendant remains a significant flight risk, and her new proposals—renouncing her French and British citizenship and placing assets under a monitor—are insufficient to ensure her future appearance. The court highlights the uncertainty and conflicting legal opinions surrounding the practical effect of renouncing French citizenship for a wanted individual.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
The subject of a motion for bail, who poses a significant risk of flight according to the Court. She has offered to r...
|
| The Defendant's spouse |
Mentioned in the context of placing shared assets into a monitored account as part of a bail proposal.
|
|
| A retired federal judge | Asset monitor |
Proposed to monitor and have co-signing authority over an account containing the Defendant's and her spouse's assets.
|
| Head of the International Criminal Assistance Bureau | Head of Bureau |
Provided an opinion on French law, arguing that being a French national is an 'insuperable obstacle' to removal.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | government agency |
The judicial body making the decision on the Defendant's pretrial detention and bail motion.
|
| The Government | government agency |
The prosecuting party in the case, arguing against the Defendant's bail motion.
|
| International Criminal Assistance Bureau of the French Ministry of Justice | government agency |
The organization whose head provided an opinion on the implications of French citizenship for removal.
|
| French Ministry of Justice | government agency |
The parent organization of the International Criminal Assistance Bureau.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-03-22
The Court's ruling on the Defendant's third motion for bail, concluding that pretrial detention continues to be warranted.
The Defendant offered to renounce her French and British citizenship and place assets in a monitored account as new conditions for bail.
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in relation to the Defendant's French citizenship, which she has offered to renounce.
|
|
|
Mentioned in relation to the Defendant's British/UK citizenship, which she has offered to renounce.
|
Relationships (3)
They have shared assets that were proposed to be placed in a monitored account for a bail package.
The Defendant is a party in a case before the Court, which is ruling on her motion for bail.
The Government is the opposing party to the Defendant in a criminal case, arguing against her release on bail.
Key Quotes (3)
"immediately upon granting of bail,"Source
— The Defendant
(Describing the speed at which she claims she can renounce her UK citizenship.)
DOJ-OGR-00002774.jpg
Quote #1
"[t]he process of renouncing her French citizenship, while not immediate, may be expedited."Source
— The Defendant
(Informing the Court about the process of renouncing her French citizenship.)
DOJ-OGR-00002774.jpg
Quote #2
"the fact that the wanted individual is a French national constitutes an insuperable obstacle to his/her removal,"Source
— Head of the International Criminal Assistance Bureau of the French Ministry of Justice
(The Government's argument, based on this official's position, regarding the difficulty of removing a French national.)
DOJ-OGR-00002774.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,213 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 169 Filed 03/22/21 Page 8 of 12
that the Defendant poses a significant risk of flight. Thus, the Court again concludes that there are no conditions of release that will reasonably assure her appearance in future proceedings.
B. Pretrial detention continues to be warranted
The thrust of the Defendant’s argument in her third motion for bail is that the two new proposed conditions vitiate the Court’s concerns regarding the risk of flight. The Defendant first offers to renounce her French and British citizenship. Def. Mot. at 2. And she also proposes to have most of her and her spouse’s assets placed in a new account that will be monitored by a retired federal judge, who would function as an asset monitor and will have co-signing authority over the account. Id. Those conditions are offered in addition to the bail package she proposed in December. See Dec. Op. at 16–17; see also Def. Mot. at 2. The new bail package does not disturb the Court’s conclusion that the Government has carried its burden of showing that these conditions are insufficient to mitigate the flight risks, and the Court again determines that no set of conditions—including the two new ones—can reasonably assure her future appearance.
The Court begins with the Defendant’s offer to renounce her French and United Kingdom citizenship. She notes that she can renounce her UK citizenship “immediately upon granting of bail,” and she informs the Court that “[t]he process of renouncing her French citizenship, while not immediate, may be expedited.” Def. Mot. at 4. As the Government notes, the offer is of unclear validity, and the relevance and practical impact of the renunciations is, at best, unclear. See Gov’t Opp’n at 5. With respect to her offer to renounce her French citizenship, the Court is again confronted with dueling opinions on the correct interpretation of French law. The Government relies on the position of the head of the International Criminal Assistance Bureau of the French Ministry of Justice, who argues that “the fact that the wanted individual is a French national constitutes an insuperable obstacle to his/her removal,” and that “[a]s long as said
8
DOJ-OGR-00002774
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document