DOJ-OGR-00001284.jpg
677 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
677 KB
Summary
This document is a court order denying a defendant's motion for bail. The Court finds that the defendant would retain access to substantial assets, including $450,000 for living expenses and other valuables worth hundreds of thousands, which constitutes a significant flight risk. The Court concludes that no set of conditions can reasonably guarantee the defendant's future appearance in court and therefore denies the motion.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
The subject of a motion for bail, whose assets and flight risk are being evaluated by the Court.
|
| Defendant's spouse | Spouse |
Mentioned in the context of shared assets and future salaries considered by the Court.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | Government agency |
The judicial body ruling on the Defendant's motion for bail.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-03-22
The Court denied the Defendant's motion for bail, concluding that no conditions could reasonably assure her appearance.
Relationships (1)
The document refers to 'her spouse’s assets' and 'future salaries for her or her spouse', indicating a marital relationship with shared finances.
Key Quotes (1)
"no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of"Source
— The Court
(The Court's final determination and legal basis for denying the Defendant's motion for bail, citing the standard from 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1).)
DOJ-OGR-00001284.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,939 characters)
Case: 20-cr-00330-AJN Document 1692 Filed 03/22/21 Page 11 of 12
concerns about whether the full extent of the Defendant’s assets have been disclosed in light of the lack of transparency when she was first arrested. But the Court assumes, for purposes of resolving this motion, that the financial report that it reviewed in December is accurate and that it accounts for all of the Defendant’s and her spouse’s assets. See Dec. Op. at 16–17.
The monitorship condition does not reasonably assure the Defendant’s future appearance, even when viewed in combination with the rest of the Defendant’s bail package. The Defendant would continue to have access to substantial assets—certainly enough to enable her flight and to evade prosecution. These include the $450,000 that the Defendant would retain for living expenses and any future salaries for her or her spouse, along with other assets, including jewelry and other chattels, that are potentially worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. See Def. Mot. at 5–6; see also Dkt. 97, Ex. O at 9. While those amounts may be a small percentage of the Defendant’s total assets, they represent a still-substantial amount that could easily facilitate flight. When combined with the Court’s weighing of the § 3142(g) factors and the presumption of detention, the Court concludes that the proposed restraints are insufficient to alter its conclusion that no combination of conditions can reasonably assure her appearance.
If the Court could conclude that any set of conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant’s future appearance, it would order her release. Yet while her proposed bail package is substantial, it cannot provide such reasonable assurances. As a result, the Court again determines that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of” the Defendant, and it denies her motion for bail on this basis. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1).
The monitorship condition does not reasonably assure the Defendant’s future appearance, even when viewed in combination with the rest of the Defendant’s bail package. The Defendant would continue to have access to substantial assets—certainly enough to enable her flight and to evade prosecution. These include the $450,000 that the Defendant would retain for living expenses and any future salaries for her or her spouse, along with other assets, including jewelry and other chattels, that are potentially worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. See Def. Mot. at 5–6; see also Dkt. 97, Ex. O at 9. While those amounts may be a small percentage of the Defendant’s total assets, they represent a still-substantial amount that could easily facilitate flight. When combined with the Court’s weighing of the § 3142(g) factors and the presumption of detention, the Court concludes that the proposed restraints are insufficient to alter its conclusion that no combination of conditions can reasonably assure her appearance.
If the Court could conclude that any set of conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant’s future appearance, it would order her release. Yet while her proposed bail package is substantial, it cannot provide such reasonable assurances. As a result, the Court again determines that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of” the Defendant, and it denies her motion for bail on this basis. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1).
11
DOJ-OGR-00001284
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document