DOJ-OGR-00001170.jpg
627 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal memorandum (government's opposition to bail)
File Size:
627 KB
Summary
This document is page 28 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on December 18, 2020. The Government argues against granting the defendant's bail package, asserting that she has transferred the majority of her wealth to her husband over the last five years, meaning any bond posted by him would essentially be her own money, reducing the 'moral suasion' preventing flight. The document cites legal precedent (United States v. Boustani) rejecting a 'two-tiered bail system' that favors wealthy defendants who can afford private security.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Accused |
Ghislaine Maxwell (identified via case number 1:20-cr-00330-AJN); described as having foreign ties and considerable f...
|
| Spouse / Husband | Potential Bond Co-signer |
Recipient of defendant's wealth; his assets are described as primarily originating from the defendant.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government |
The prosecution arguing against bail.
|
|
| Court |
Judicial body overseeing the case.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals cited for legal precedent.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Relationships (1)
The document states the defendant funneled wealth to her husband and that he would be co-signing her bond.
Key Quotes (3)
"it seems clear that the defendant slowly funneled the majority of her wealth to trusts and into her husband’s name over the last five years."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001170.jpg
Quote #1
"were the defendant to flee, she would largely be sacrificing her own money and assets, thereby limiting the moral suasion of her spouse co-signing the bond."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001170.jpg
Quote #2
"the Bail Reform Act does not permit a two-tiered bail system in which defendants of lesser means are detained pending trial while wealthy defendants are released to self-funded private jails"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001170.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,288 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 100-2 Filed 12/18/20 Page 28 of 36
Setting aside whether the defendant’s spouse has additional assets beyond those included in the
financial report, the vast majority of the assets contained in the report itself apparently originated
with the defendant. (See Def. Ex. O at 10). Based on the report, it seems clear that the defendant
slowly funneled the majority of her wealth to trusts and into her husband’s name over the last five
years. As a result, if the Court were to grant the defendant’s proposed bail package and the
defendant were to flee, her spouse would primarily lose the money that the defendant gave him
rather than his own independent assets. In other words, were the defendant to flee, she would
largely be sacrificing her own money and assets, thereby limiting the moral suasion of her spouse
co-signing the bond. In sum, the defendant’s submission does not change the Government’s
position at the original bail hearing that the defendant has considerable financial resources, and
could live a comfortable life as a fugitive.
financial report, the vast majority of the assets contained in the report itself apparently originated
with the defendant. (See Def. Ex. O at 10). Based on the report, it seems clear that the defendant
slowly funneled the majority of her wealth to trusts and into her husband’s name over the last five
years. As a result, if the Court were to grant the defendant’s proposed bail package and the
defendant were to flee, her spouse would primarily lose the money that the defendant gave him
rather than his own independent assets. In other words, were the defendant to flee, she would
largely be sacrificing her own money and assets, thereby limiting the moral suasion of her spouse
co-signing the bond. In sum, the defendant’s submission does not change the Government’s
position at the original bail hearing that the defendant has considerable financial resources, and
could live a comfortable life as a fugitive.
The combination of all these factors, including the defendant’s foreign ties, demonstrated
ability to live in hiding, and financial resources, confirm that the defendant’s characteristics
continue to weigh in favor of detention. Given the multiplicity of factors supporting detention,
this is not one of the rare cases in which a private security company could conceivably be
considered as a bail condition. See United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79, 82 (2d Cir. 2019). The
Second Circuit has squarely held that “the Bail Reform Act does not permit a two-tiered bail
system in which defendants of lesser means are detained pending trial while wealthy defendants
are released to self-funded private jails,” and that “a defendant may be released on such a condition
[REDACTED BLOCK]
The
Court need not resolve this question, however, because regardless of whether the defendant’s
husband may have additional undisclosed assets, as discussed herein, the key takeaway from the
financial report is that the vast majority of the spouse’s reported assets, upon which the proposed
bond is based, originated with the defendant, meaning he would not be losing his own money if
the defendant fled.
ability to live in hiding, and financial resources, confirm that the defendant’s characteristics
continue to weigh in favor of detention. Given the multiplicity of factors supporting detention,
this is not one of the rare cases in which a private security company could conceivably be
considered as a bail condition. See United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79, 82 (2d Cir. 2019). The
Second Circuit has squarely held that “the Bail Reform Act does not permit a two-tiered bail
system in which defendants of lesser means are detained pending trial while wealthy defendants
are released to self-funded private jails,” and that “a defendant may be released on such a condition
[REDACTED BLOCK]
The
Court need not resolve this question, however, because regardless of whether the defendant’s
husband may have additional undisclosed assets, as discussed herein, the key takeaway from the
financial report is that the vast majority of the spouse’s reported assets, upon which the proposed
bond is based, originated with the defendant, meaning he would not be losing his own money if
the defendant fled.
25
DOJ-OGR-00001170
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document