DOJ-OGR-00010562.jpg
757 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
0
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (sentencing memorandum/legal brief)
File Size:
757 KB
Summary
This document is Page 27 of a court filing (Document 670) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on June 22, 2022. It contains legal arguments regarding sentencing guidelines, specifically the 'otherwise extensive' prong of criminal organization. The text cites Second Circuit precedents (*Carrozzella* and *Rubenstein*) to argue that a defendant does not need to supervise another *knowing* participant to qualify for an enhancement, drawing a parallel to a 'right-hand man' scenario involving unknowing participants.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Subject of sentencing |
Referred to in the legal argument regarding supervision of knowing vs. unknowing participants (Implicitly Ghislaine M...
|
| Carrozzella | Case Law Subject |
Defendant in cited case United States v. Carrozzella, used to define 'otherwise extensive' criminal schemes.
|
| Rubenstein | Case Law Subject |
Defendant in cited case United States v. Rubenstein, used as precedent for schemes involving a 'right-hand man'.
|
Relationships (2)
Legal argument discusses the defendant organizing or leading participants with specific criminal intent.
Rubenstein Defendant 1
→
Co-conspirator
→
Rubenstein Defendant 2
Cited as 'one serving as a right-hand man to the other'.
Key Quotes (3)
"Specifically, when evaluating whether the 'otherwise extensive' prong applies, the sentencing court must consider '(i) the number of knowing participants; (ii) the number of unknowing participants whose activities were organized or led by the defendant with specific criminal intent...'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010562.jpg
Quote #1
"the Circuit emphasized distinguishing between service providers, such as taxi drivers, from individuals who function more like knowing participants who receive direction from a defendant 'with the specific intent' to further the criminal activity."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010562.jpg
Quote #2
"Of particular note, the Rubenstein case applied the 'otherwise extensive' enhancement where the two knowing participants worked together, with one serving as a 'right-hand man' to the other, while they organized 'as many as seven participants who were unknowing,' who worked under the"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010562.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,216 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 670 Filed 06/22/22 Page 27 of 55
82 (2d Cir. 2008) (same). Specifically, when evaluating whether the “otherwise extensive” prong
applies, the sentencing court must consider “(i) the number of knowing participants; (ii) the
number of unknowing participants whose activities were organized or led by the defendant with
specific criminal intent; (iii) the extent to which the services of the unknowing participants were
peculiar and necessary to the criminal scheme.” Carrozzella, 105 F.3d at 803-04. In setting out
these factors, the Circuit emphasized that “[t]he number of knowing participants” is “relevant” to
the analysis “because a criminal scheme with four knowing participants that is aided by unknowing
participants is more likely to be ‘otherwise extensive’ than a scheme with a single knowing
participant.” Id. at 804. Additionally, when evaluating the number of unknowing participants, the
Circuit emphasized distinguishing between service providers, such as taxi drivers, from individuals
who function more like knowing participants who receive direction from a defendant “with the
specific intent” to further the criminal activity.
applies, the sentencing court must consider “(i) the number of knowing participants; (ii) the
number of unknowing participants whose activities were organized or led by the defendant with
specific criminal intent; (iii) the extent to which the services of the unknowing participants were
peculiar and necessary to the criminal scheme.” Carrozzella, 105 F.3d at 803-04. In setting out
these factors, the Circuit emphasized that “[t]he number of knowing participants” is “relevant” to
the analysis “because a criminal scheme with four knowing participants that is aided by unknowing
participants is more likely to be ‘otherwise extensive’ than a scheme with a single knowing
participant.” Id. at 804. Additionally, when evaluating the number of unknowing participants, the
Circuit emphasized distinguishing between service providers, such as taxi drivers, from individuals
who function more like knowing participants who receive direction from a defendant “with the
specific intent” to further the criminal activity.
In this analysis, the Circuit did not articulate or rely on any requirement that a defendant
must have supervised at least one knowing participant. Id. Rather, the Court expressly
contemplated that the enhancement might apply to an organization involving multiple unknowing
participants. See id. Consistent with that understanding, and contrary to the defense’s proposed
interpretation, the Circuit has affirmed the application of § 3B1.1 under the “otherwise extensive”
prong to two defendants who were themselves the only two knowing participants identified in the
scheme. Rubenstein, 403 F.3d at 99. That outcome makes clear that the Circuit does not require
a defendant to supervise any other knowing participant in the scheme. Of particular note, the
Rubenstein case applied the “otherwise extensive” enhancement where the two knowing
participants worked together, with one serving as a “right-hand man” to the other, while they
organized “as many as seven participants who were unknowing,” who worked under the
must have supervised at least one knowing participant. Id. Rather, the Court expressly
contemplated that the enhancement might apply to an organization involving multiple unknowing
participants. See id. Consistent with that understanding, and contrary to the defense’s proposed
interpretation, the Circuit has affirmed the application of § 3B1.1 under the “otherwise extensive”
prong to two defendants who were themselves the only two knowing participants identified in the
scheme. Rubenstein, 403 F.3d at 99. That outcome makes clear that the Circuit does not require
a defendant to supervise any other knowing participant in the scheme. Of particular note, the
Rubenstein case applied the “otherwise extensive” enhancement where the two knowing
participants worked together, with one serving as a “right-hand man” to the other, while they
organized “as many as seven participants who were unknowing,” who worked under the
25
DOJ-OGR-00010562
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document