DOJ-OGR-00002248.jpg
692 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion (pretrial detention ruling)
File Size:
692 KB
Summary
This document is page 16 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court denies the Defendant's request for release, citing a 'lack of candor' and 'woefully incomplete' financial representations made to Pretrial Services. Consequently, the Court concludes the Defendant remains a flight risk and rejects the proposed $28.5 million bail package.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the detention hearing; accused of lack of candor and misrepresenting facts regarding finances.
|
| Spouse | Family Member |
Mentioned regarding privacy concerns and as a co-signer for the proposed bond.
|
| The Court | Judicial Body |
The entity issuing the ruling denying bail.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Pretrial Services |
Agency to which the Defendant allegedly made incomplete representations.
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution; met the burden of persuasion regarding flight risk.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Relationships (2)
Reference to 'her spouse's privacy' and bond 'co-signed by the Defendant and her spouse'.
Defendant made representations to Pretrial Services.
Key Quotes (3)
"In sum, the evidence of a lack of candor is, if anything, stronger now than in July 2020, as it is clear to the Court that the Defendant’s representations to Pretrial Services were woefully incomplete."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002248.jpg
Quote #1
"That lack of candor raises significant concerns as to whether the Court has now been provided a full and accurate picture of her finances and as to the Defendant’s willingness to abide by any set of conditions of release."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002248.jpg
Quote #2
"Thus, the Court’s original conclusion that the Defendant poses a flight risk and that no set of conditions can reasonably assure her future appearance remains unaltered."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002248.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,038 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 106 Filed 12/30/20 Page 16 of 22
was the result of the Defendant’s misestimation rather than misdirection. And while the
Defendant’s concerns regarding her spouse’s privacy are not insignificant, she fails to furnish
any explanation as to why those concerns led her to misrepresent key facts to Pretrial Services
and, by extension, the Court. In sum, the evidence of a lack of candor is, if anything, stronger
now than in July 2020, as it is clear to the Court that the Defendant’s representations to Pretrial
Services were woefully incomplete. That lack of candor raises significant concerns as to
whether the Court has now been provided a full and accurate picture of her finances and as to the
Defendant’s willingness to abide by any set of conditions of release.
Defendant’s concerns regarding her spouse’s privacy are not insignificant, she fails to furnish
any explanation as to why those concerns led her to misrepresent key facts to Pretrial Services
and, by extension, the Court. In sum, the evidence of a lack of candor is, if anything, stronger
now than in July 2020, as it is clear to the Court that the Defendant’s representations to Pretrial
Services were woefully incomplete. That lack of candor raises significant concerns as to
whether the Court has now been provided a full and accurate picture of her finances and as to the
Defendant’s willingness to abide by any set of conditions of release.
For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that the third factor continues to weigh
in favor of detention.
in favor of detention.
C. Pretrial detention continues to be warranted
In light of the reasons stated above, the Government has again met its burden of
persuasion by “a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents a risk of flight.”
English, 629 F.3d at 319 (quoting Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436). Taking the § 3142(g) factors into
account, the Court concludes that the presumption in favor of detention, the nature and
characteristics of the charged offenses, the weight of the evidence, and the history and
characteristics of the Defendant all weigh in favor of detention. Along similar lines, the
Government has also shown, and the Court concludes for the reasons outlined below, that the
Defendant’s proposed bail package cannot reasonably assure her appearance. Thus, the Court’s
original conclusion that the Defendant poses a flight risk and that no set of conditions can
reasonably assure her future appearance remains unaltered.
persuasion by “a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents a risk of flight.”
English, 629 F.3d at 319 (quoting Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436). Taking the § 3142(g) factors into
account, the Court concludes that the presumption in favor of detention, the nature and
characteristics of the charged offenses, the weight of the evidence, and the history and
characteristics of the Defendant all weigh in favor of detention. Along similar lines, the
Government has also shown, and the Court concludes for the reasons outlined below, that the
Defendant’s proposed bail package cannot reasonably assure her appearance. Thus, the Court’s
original conclusion that the Defendant poses a flight risk and that no set of conditions can
reasonably assure her future appearance remains unaltered.
As already noted, the Defendant now proposes a $28.5 million bail package, which
includes a $22.5 million personal recognizance bond co-signed by the Defendant and her spouse
includes a $22.5 million personal recognizance bond co-signed by the Defendant and her spouse
16
DOJ-OGR-00002248
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document