DOJ-OGR-00020089.jpg
720 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
3
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
720 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on February 18, 2020, argues for the continued detention of a female defendant, asserting she is a significant flight risk due to her financial means, foreign ties, and skill at hiding. The filing dismisses proposed bail conditions, such as private security guards and GPS monitoring, as insufficient to ensure her appearance in court. To support its position, the document cites several past federal cases (Banki, Zarger, Benatar) where courts denied bail under similar circumstances, deeming electronic monitoring and home confinement inadequate for high-risk defendants.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Unnamed Defendant | Defendant |
The subject of the legal argument, referred to as "defendant," "she," and "her." The document argues for her detentio...
|
| Banki | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Banki, where bail was denied to a naturalized citizen native to Iran.
|
| Zarger | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Zarger, where an application for bail was rejected.
|
| Benatar | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Benatar, which is cited for the same reasoning as the Zarger case.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Government agency |
Appears as the plaintiff in several cited court cases (United States v. Banki, United States v. Zarger, United States...
|
| unnamed security company | Company |
A company that would potentially lose $1 million if the defendant fled, a risk the defendant is argued to be willing ...
|
Timeline (4 events)
2000-08-04
In United States v. Zarger, the court rejected the defendant's application for bail.
E.D.N.Y.
2002-10-10
In United States v. Benatar, the court made a similar ruling regarding bail conditions.
E.D.N.Y.
2010-01-21
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the native country of the defendant in the cited case of United States v. Banki.
|
|
|
Southern District of New York, the court district for the cited United States v. Banki case.
|
|
|
Eastern District of New York, the court district for the cited United States v. Zarger and United States v. Benatar c...
|
Relationships (1)
The document presents the United States' argument against the defendant's release on bail in a criminal case.
Key Quotes (3)
"privately funded jail"Source
— Unknown (Quoted by the author of the document)
(Used to describe the defendant's proposed release conditions, which the document argues are not warranted.)
DOJ-OGR-00020089.jpg
Quote #1
"hardly foolproof"Source
— Court in United States v. Banki
(A description of electronic monitoring, cited to argue against its effectiveness for the current defendant.)
DOJ-OGR-00020089.jpg
Quote #2
"at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant’s head start"Source
— Court in United States v. Zarger
(A description of home detention with electronic monitoring, cited to argue its insufficiency as a bail condition.)
DOJ-OGR-00020089.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,115 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-560-AJN Document 1002 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.
26
DOJ-OGR-00020089
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document