DOJ-OGR-00020068.jpg
766 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal memorandum (government opposition to bail)
File Size:
766 KB
Summary
This document is page 8 of a court filing (Document 102) from December 28, 2020, in the case US v. Maxwell. It details the Court's reasoning for denying bail, citing Ghislaine Maxwell as a 'substantial actual risk of flight.' The text highlights her 'significant financial resources,' her failure to provide a full financial accounting, and her 'demonstrated sophistication' in hiding both her assets and herself from the public and the Government.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the detention hearing; described as a flight risk with significant financial resources and sophistication ...
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Associate/Deceased |
Mentioned regarding his arrest and Maxwell's presence in the US afterward.
|
| The Court | Judicial Authority |
The entity making the findings regarding flight risk and detention conditions (likely Judge Nathan based on case capt...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government |
Refers to the Prosecution/Department of Justice.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated by footer stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (3 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Country the defendant did not leave after Epstein's arrest.
|
Relationships (2)
Document discusses Maxwell's movements relative to 'Epstein's arrest'.
Maxwell hid from the government; Government arguing for detention.
Key Quotes (5)
"the defendant “poses a substantial actual risk of flight.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020068.jpg
Quote #1
"“even the most restrictive conditions of release would be insufficient” to ensure the defendant’s appearance."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020068.jpg
Quote #2
"“[e]ven if the picture of her financial resources were not opaque, as it is, detention would still be appropriate.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020068.jpg
Quote #3
"her “demonstrated sophistication in hiding those resources and herself.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020068.jpg
Quote #4
"the defendant’s “recent conduct underscores her extraordinary capacity to evade detection, even in the face of what the defense has acknowledged to be extreme and unusual efforts to locate her.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020068.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,286 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 102 Filed 12/28/20 Page 8 of 36
would not pose an insurmountable burden for her.” (Tr. 84). The Court recognized the defense
arguments that the defendant did not leave the United States after Epstein’s arrest and was in
contact with the Government through counsel, but emphasized that the defendant may have
expected that she would not be prosecuted. (Tr. 84-85). The Court also noted that the defendant
“did not provide the government with her whereabouts,” and that the “[c]ircumstances of her arrest
. . . may cast some doubt on the claim that she was not hiding from the government, a claim that
she makes throughout the papers and here today, but even if true, the reality that Ms. Maxwell may
face such serious charges herself may not have set in until she was actually indicted.” (Tr. 85).
Based on all of those factors, the Court found that the Government had carried its burden of
demonstrating that the defendant “poses a substantial actual risk of flight.” (Tr. 86).
arguments that the defendant did not leave the United States after Epstein’s arrest and was in
contact with the Government through counsel, but emphasized that the defendant may have
expected that she would not be prosecuted. (Tr. 84-85). The Court also noted that the defendant
“did not provide the government with her whereabouts,” and that the “[c]ircumstances of her arrest
. . . may cast some doubt on the claim that she was not hiding from the government, a claim that
she makes throughout the papers and here today, but even if true, the reality that Ms. Maxwell may
face such serious charges herself may not have set in until she was actually indicted.” (Tr. 85).
Based on all of those factors, the Court found that the Government had carried its burden of
demonstrating that the defendant “poses a substantial actual risk of flight.” (Tr. 86).
The Court then concluded that “even the most restrictive conditions of release would be
insufficient” to ensure the defendant’s appearance. (Id.). Acknowledging that the defense’s initial
bail package represented only a fraction of the defendant’s assets, the Court found that “even a
substantially larger package would be insufficient.” (Id.). Although the defendant “apparently
failed to submit a full accounting or even close to full accounting of her financial situation,” the
Court implicitly rejected the defense’s offer to provide additional information by determining that
“[e]ven if the picture of her financial resources were not opaque, as it is, detention would still be
appropriate.” (Tr. 86-87 (emphasis added)). That conclusion was informed not only by the
defendant’s “significant financial resources,” but also her “demonstrated sophistication in hiding
those resources and herself.” (Tr. 87). “Even assuming that Ms. Maxwell only wanted to hide
from the press and the public,” the Court emphasized that the defendant’s “recent conduct
underscores her extraordinary capacity to evade detection, even in the face of what the defense has
acknowledged to be extreme and unusual efforts to locate her.” (Id.). Given that sophistication,
insufficient” to ensure the defendant’s appearance. (Id.). Acknowledging that the defense’s initial
bail package represented only a fraction of the defendant’s assets, the Court found that “even a
substantially larger package would be insufficient.” (Id.). Although the defendant “apparently
failed to submit a full accounting or even close to full accounting of her financial situation,” the
Court implicitly rejected the defense’s offer to provide additional information by determining that
“[e]ven if the picture of her financial resources were not opaque, as it is, detention would still be
appropriate.” (Tr. 86-87 (emphasis added)). That conclusion was informed not only by the
defendant’s “significant financial resources,” but also her “demonstrated sophistication in hiding
those resources and herself.” (Tr. 87). “Even assuming that Ms. Maxwell only wanted to hide
from the press and the public,” the Court emphasized that the defendant’s “recent conduct
underscores her extraordinary capacity to evade detection, even in the face of what the defense has
acknowledged to be extreme and unusual efforts to locate her.” (Id.). Given that sophistication,
5
DOJ-OGR-00020068
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document