Banki
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-01-21 | Legal ruling | Denial of bail in the case of United States v. Banki. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2010-01-21 | Legal proceeding | Court denied bail in the case of United States v. Banki. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2010-01-21 | Court ruling | In United States v. Banki, the court denied bail to the defendant. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2010-01-21 | Legal case | United States v. Banki, 10 Cr. 008 (JFK), Dkt. 7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2010) | Southern District of New York | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001171.jpg
This legal document argues for the continued detention of a defendant, asserting she is a significant flight risk due to her financial means, foreign ties, and willingness to hide. The author dismisses proposed bail conditions like a $1 million bond from a security company and GPS monitoring as insufficient, citing several legal precedents (U.S. v. Banki, Zarger, and Benatar) where similar measures were deemed inadequate for high-risk defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00001145.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing dated June 25, 2018, associated with case number 201cr7-00330-AJN. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases cited as legal precedent, with decisions spanning from 1985 to 2019. The vast majority of the cases listed are criminal proceedings with the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00000997.jpg
This legal document argues that a defendant should be denied bail and home confinement. The prosecution contends the defendant is a significant flight risk due to her access to over $20 million in financial resources, her refusal to account for this wealth, and her ability to maintain relationships remotely. The document cites several legal precedents to argue that GPS ankle-bracelet monitoring is not a reliable means of preventing flight.
DOJ-OGR-00000337.jpg
This legal document, page 9 of a court filing, argues against a defendant's proposal to hire private security guards as an alternative to pretrial detention. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Second Circuit and other district courts to assert that such arrangements create a conflict of interest, magnify flight risks, and foster unequal treatment based on wealth, which is contrary to the principles of the Bail Reform Act. The document highlights past cases where wealthy defendants on private security details violated the terms of their release.
DOJ-OGR-00002190(1).jpg
This document is page 29 of a legal filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (identified by case number). The text presents the prosecution's argument against granting bail, citing the defendant's wealth, foreign ties, and skill at hiding as flight risks. It argues that a 'privately funded jail' and GPS monitoring are insufficient to ensure appearance in court, citing legal precedents (Banki, Zarger, Benatar) to support the claim that electronic monitoring merely reduces a head start rather than preventing flight.
DOJ-OGR-00002164.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 18, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases, dating from 1985 to 2019, that are cited as legal precedent in the main document. The cases cover various federal districts and circuits, with a significant number originating from courts in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00021731.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a legal appellate brief filed on June 29, 2023, related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). The text argues that there was no prejudicial variance in the trial, asserting that the jury did not convict Maxwell solely based on the transport of a victim named 'Jane' to New Mexico, but rather on intentions to violate New York law. It cites various legal precedents regarding 'variance' and 'constructive amendment' in indictments.
DOJ-OGR-00021654.jpg
This document appears to be page 'vi' (Table of Authorities) from a legal filing, specifically Case 22-1426 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell appeal), filed on June 29, 2023. It lists various legal precedents involving the United States government against various defendants (Annabi, Archer, Ashraf, etc.) primarily in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The document serves as an index for case law citations found later in the full brief.
DOJ-OGR-00010389.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses the legal distinction between a 'constructive amendment' and a 'variance' in a criminal indictment. It cites numerous precedents to argue that for a variance to warrant reversal of a conviction, the defendant must demonstrate 'substantial prejudice'. The document concludes by noting that the Defendant has filed a motion under Rule 33 to vacate the judgment and grant a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00020089.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 18, 2020, argues for the continued detention of a female defendant, asserting she is a significant flight risk due to her financial means, foreign ties, and skill at hiding. The filing dismisses proposed bail conditions, such as private security guards and GPS monitoring, as insufficient to ensure her appearance in court. To support its position, the document cites several past federal cases (Banki, Zarger, Benatar) where courts denied bail under similar circumstances, deeming electronic monitoring and home confinement inadequate for high-risk defendants.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity