DOJ-OGR-00002777.jpg
667 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion (page 11 of 12)
File Size:
667 KB
Summary
This document is page 11 of a court order filed on March 22, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court denies the Defendant's motion for bail, citing that proposed conditions, including monitorship, cannot reasonably assure her appearance in court. The judge notes that despite a substantial bail package, the Defendant retains access to significant assets ($450,000 for living expenses plus valuable jewelry/chattels) that could facilitate flight and evasion of prosecution.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the bail hearing; Ghislaine Maxwell (identified via Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The court deems her a flight ...
|
| Spouse | Family Member |
Mentioned in relation to joint assets and potential future salaries.
|
| The Court | Judge/Judiciary |
Judge Alison J. Nathan (identified via case number initials AJN). Reviews the motion and denies bail.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Implied by the case number format and legal proceedings.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Key Quotes (4)
"The monitorship condition does not reasonably assure the Defendant’s future appearance, even when viewed in combination with the rest of the Defendant’s bail package."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002777.jpg
Quote #1
"The Defendant would continue to have access to substantial assets—certainly enough to enable her flight and to evade prosecution."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002777.jpg
Quote #2
"These include the $450,000 that the Defendant would retain for living expenses and any future salaries for her or her spouse..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002777.jpg
Quote #3
"...the Court again determines that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of” the Defendant, and it denies her motion for bail on this basis."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002777.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,941 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 169 Filed 03/22/21 Page 11 of 12
concerns about whether the full extent of the Defendant’s assets have been disclosed in light of
the lack of transparency when she was first arrested. But the Court assumes, for purposes of
resolving this motion, that the financial report that it reviewed in December is accurate and that it
accounts for all of the Defendant’s and her spouse’s assets. See Dec. Op. at 16–17.
the lack of transparency when she was first arrested. But the Court assumes, for purposes of
resolving this motion, that the financial report that it reviewed in December is accurate and that it
accounts for all of the Defendant’s and her spouse’s assets. See Dec. Op. at 16–17.
The monitorship condition does not reasonably assure the Defendant’s future appearance,
even when viewed in combination with the rest of the Defendant’s bail package. The Defendant
would continue to have access to substantial assets—certainly enough to enable her flight and to
evade prosecution. These include the $450,000 that the Defendant would retain for living
expenses and any future salaries for her or her spouse, along with other assets, including jewelry
and other chattels, that are potentially worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. See Def. Mot. at
5–6; see also Dkt. 97, Ex. O at 9. While those amounts may be a small percentage of the
Defendant’s total assets, they represent a still-substantial amount that could easily facilitate
flight. When combined with the Court’s weighing of the § 3142(g) factors and the presumption
of detention, the Court concludes that the proposed restraints are insufficient to alter its
conclusion that no combination of conditions can reasonably assure her appearance.
even when viewed in combination with the rest of the Defendant’s bail package. The Defendant
would continue to have access to substantial assets—certainly enough to enable her flight and to
evade prosecution. These include the $450,000 that the Defendant would retain for living
expenses and any future salaries for her or her spouse, along with other assets, including jewelry
and other chattels, that are potentially worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. See Def. Mot. at
5–6; see also Dkt. 97, Ex. O at 9. While those amounts may be a small percentage of the
Defendant’s total assets, they represent a still-substantial amount that could easily facilitate
flight. When combined with the Court’s weighing of the § 3142(g) factors and the presumption
of detention, the Court concludes that the proposed restraints are insufficient to alter its
conclusion that no combination of conditions can reasonably assure her appearance.
If the Court could conclude that any set of conditions could reasonably assure the
Defendant’s future appearance, it would order her release. Yet while her proposed bail package
is substantial, it cannot provide such reasonable assurances. As a result, the Court again
determines that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the
appearance of” the Defendant, and it denies her motion for bail on this basis. 18 U.S.C. §
3142(e)(1).
Defendant’s future appearance, it would order her release. Yet while her proposed bail package
is substantial, it cannot provide such reasonable assurances. As a result, the Court again
determines that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the
appearance of” the Defendant, and it denies her motion for bail on this basis. 18 U.S.C. §
3142(e)(1).
11
DOJ-OGR-00002777
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document