DOJ-OGR-00001171.jpg
720 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
720 KB
Summary
This legal document argues for the continued detention of a defendant, asserting she is a significant flight risk due to her financial means, foreign ties, and willingness to hide. The author dismisses proposed bail conditions like a $1 million bond from a security company and GPS monitoring as insufficient, citing several legal precedents (U.S. v. Banki, Zarger, and Benatar) where similar measures were deemed inadequate for high-risk defendants.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Banki | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the cited case United States v. Banki, who was denied bail.
|
| Zarger | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the cited case United States v. Zarger, whose application for bail was rejected.
|
| Benatar | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the cited case United States v. Benatar.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Party in the cited legal cases: United States v. Banki, United States v. Zarger, and United States v. Benatar.
|
| S.D.N.Y. | court |
Abbreviation for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, mentioned in the citation fo...
|
| E.D.N.Y. | court |
Abbreviation for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, mentioned in the citations fo...
|
| 2d Cir. | court |
Abbreviation for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed the Banki decision.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2000-08-04
Rejection of a defendant's application for bail in the case of United States v. Zarger.
E.D.N.Y.
2002-10-10
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the native country of the defendant in the Banki case.
|
Relationships (1)
The document presents arguments from the perspective of the prosecution (United States) against the defendant's release on bail.
Key Quotes (3)
"privately funded jail"Source
— Unknown (quoted by the author)
(Used to describe the proposed release conditions for the defendant, which the author argues are not warranted.)
DOJ-OGR-00001171.jpg
Quote #1
"hardly foolproof"Source
— Court in United States v. Banki
(A quote from a previous court case describing the unreliability of electronic monitoring.)
DOJ-OGR-00001171.jpg
Quote #2
"at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant’s head start"Source
— Court in United States v. Zarger
(A quote from a previous court case describing the limited effectiveness of home detention with electronic monitoring.)
DOJ-OGR-00001171.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,117 characters)
Case 1:16-cr-00330-AJN Document 100-2 Filed 02/18/20 Page 29 of 36
only where, but for his wealth, he would not have been detained.” Id. Here, detention is warranted not only because of the defendant’s financial means, but also her foreign ties, her skill at and willingness to live in hiding, the nature of the offense resulting in a presumption of detention, and the strength of the evidence, among other factors. The defense suggestion that the defendant’s private security guards should post cash in support of a bond does not change this calculus. There is no reason to believe that the defendant would be at all troubled by a security company in which she has no personal stake losing $1 million, especially if that sacrifice meant she could escape conviction and sentencing. Accordingly, release to the equivalent of a “privately funded jail” is not warranted here. Id. at 83.
Relatedly, as the Court previously recognized (Tr. 87-88), a GPS monitoring bracelet offers little value for a defendant who poses such a significant flight risk because it is does nothing to prevent the defendant’s flight once it has been removed. At best, home confinement and electronic monitoring would reduce a defendant’s head start after cutting the bracelet. See United States v. Banki, 10 Cr. 008 (JFK), Dkt. 7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2010) (denying bail to a naturalized citizen who was native to Iran, who was single and childless and who faced a statutory maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment, and noting that electronic monitoring is “hardly foolproof.”), aff’d, 369 F. App’x 152 (2d Cir. 2010); United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773 (JG), 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (rejecting defendant’s application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring “at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant’s head start”); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099 (JG), 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). Simply put, no bail conditions, including those proposed in the Renewed Bail Motion, would be sufficient to ensure that this defendant appears in court.
Relatedly, as the Court previously recognized (Tr. 87-88), a GPS monitoring bracelet offers little value for a defendant who poses such a significant flight risk because it is does nothing to prevent the defendant’s flight once it has been removed. At best, home confinement and electronic monitoring would reduce a defendant’s head start after cutting the bracelet. See United States v. Banki, 10 Cr. 008 (JFK), Dkt. 7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2010) (denying bail to a naturalized citizen who was native to Iran, who was single and childless and who faced a statutory maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment, and noting that electronic monitoring is “hardly foolproof.”), aff’d, 369 F. App’x 152 (2d Cir. 2010); United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773 (JG), 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (rejecting defendant’s application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring “at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant’s head start”); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099 (JG), 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). Simply put, no bail conditions, including those proposed in the Renewed Bail Motion, would be sufficient to ensure that this defendant appears in court.
26
DOJ-OGR-00001171
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document