DOJ-OGR-00020142.jpg
529 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion (regarding bail/detention)
File Size:
529 KB
Summary
This document is page 15 of a legal order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The court argues against granting bail, citing Maxwell's lack of employment ties to the US, significant ties abroad, and a pattern of providing erroneous financial information to Pretrial Services, specifically underreporting her assets in July 2020 by omitting her spouse's assets and trust accounts.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the detention hearing; accused of providing incomplete financial information to Pretrial Services.
|
| Spouse | Family Member |
Maxwell's spouse; mentioned regarding assets left out of financial reports and Maxwell's reluctance to discuss him.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Pretrial Services |
Agency to whom the Defendant reported financial assets.
|
|
| Macalvins |
Prominent accounting firm that prepared a report on the Defendant's finances.
|
|
| The Court |
Evaluating the motion for bail.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated in footer stamp).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-07
Defendant represented financial status to Pretrial Services.
USA
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where Defendant lacks employment ties.
|
|
|
Location of a property owned by a corporation where the Defendant stayed.
|
|
|
Location where Defendant has significant ties to family and friends.
|
Relationships (1)
Mention of 'spouse's assets' and Maxwell's reluctance to discuss him.
Key Quotes (6)
"the Defendant continues to lack any employment ties to the United States"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020142.jpg
Quote #1
"flight would not pose an insurmountable burden to the Defendant."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020142.jpg
Quote #2
"Most notably, the Defendant’s pattern of providing incomplete or erroneous information to the Court or to Pretrial Services bears significantly on the Court’s application of the third factor"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020142.jpg
Quote #3
"she possessed around $3.5 million worth of assets (while leaving out her spouse’s assets and assets that had been transferred to trust accounts)"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020142.jpg
Quote #4
"she was “just able to stay there.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020142.jpg
Quote #5
"Ms. Maxwell was reluctant to discuss anything about her [spouse] and expressed that to Pretrial Services."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020142.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,215 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 106 Filed 12/30/20 Page 15 of 22
does not mean that those people would be unable to visit her were she to flee to another country.
In addition, the Defendant continues to lack any employment ties to the United States—another
factor weighing in favor of detention. Furthermore, it is apparent from the letters that the
Defendant has significant ties to family and friends abroad. In light of this, nothing in the
renewed motion for bail alters the Court’s fundamental conclusion that flight would not pose an
insurmountable burden to the Defendant.
In addition, the Defendant continues to lack any employment ties to the United States—another
factor weighing in favor of detention. Furthermore, it is apparent from the letters that the
Defendant has significant ties to family and friends abroad. In light of this, nothing in the
renewed motion for bail alters the Court’s fundamental conclusion that flight would not pose an
insurmountable burden to the Defendant.
Other factors that similarly speak to the Defendant’s history and characteristics weigh in
favor of detention. Most notably, the Defendant’s pattern of providing incomplete or erroneous
information to the Court or to Pretrial Services bears significantly on the Court’s application of
the third factor to the present case. Among other things, in July 2020 the Defendant represented
to Pretrial Services that she possessed around $3.5 million worth of assets (while leaving out her
spouse’s assets and assets that had been transferred to trust accounts) and the representation that
the New Hampshire property was owned by a corporation and that she was “just able to stay
there.” See Pretrial Services Report at 2. The Defendant now claims that she “was detained at
the time and had no access to her financial records and was trying to piece together these
numbers from memory. According to the Macalvins report, [the financial figures] are a close
approximation of the value of the assets that Ms. Maxwell held in her own name at the time of
her arrest. . . . For the reasons already discussed, Ms. Maxwell was reluctant to discuss anything
about her [spouse] and expressed that to Pretrial Services.” Def. Mot. at 16 n.5. Even if the
Defendant was unable to provide an exact number, however, the difference between the number
she originally reported to Pretrial Services and the number now presented to the Court in the
Macalvins report, a report on the Defendant’s finances prepared by a prominent accounting firm
for purposes of this motion, see Def. Mot., Ex. O, makes it unlikely that the misrepresentation
favor of detention. Most notably, the Defendant’s pattern of providing incomplete or erroneous
information to the Court or to Pretrial Services bears significantly on the Court’s application of
the third factor to the present case. Among other things, in July 2020 the Defendant represented
to Pretrial Services that she possessed around $3.5 million worth of assets (while leaving out her
spouse’s assets and assets that had been transferred to trust accounts) and the representation that
the New Hampshire property was owned by a corporation and that she was “just able to stay
there.” See Pretrial Services Report at 2. The Defendant now claims that she “was detained at
the time and had no access to her financial records and was trying to piece together these
numbers from memory. According to the Macalvins report, [the financial figures] are a close
approximation of the value of the assets that Ms. Maxwell held in her own name at the time of
her arrest. . . . For the reasons already discussed, Ms. Maxwell was reluctant to discuss anything
about her [spouse] and expressed that to Pretrial Services.” Def. Mot. at 16 n.5. Even if the
Defendant was unable to provide an exact number, however, the difference between the number
she originally reported to Pretrial Services and the number now presented to the Court in the
Macalvins report, a report on the Defendant’s finances prepared by a prominent accounting firm
for purposes of this motion, see Def. Mot., Ex. O, makes it unlikely that the misrepresentation
15
DOJ-OGR-00020142
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document