EFTA00103380.pdf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR RELEASE AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney Southern District of New York Attorney for the United States of America Assistant nueStates Attorneys - Of Counsel - EFTA00103380  TABLE OF CONTENTS THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR RELEASE 1 BACKGROUND 2 APPLICABLE LAW 6 DISCUSSION 8 A. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense 8 B. The Strength of the Evidence 9 C. The Characteristics of the Defendant 12 D. Conditions of Confinement 29 CONCLUSION 33 EFTA00103381  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Jackson v. Goon!, 664 F. Supp. 2d 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 27 United States v. Abdullahu, 488 F. Supp. 2d 433 (D.N.J. 2007) 19 United States v. Banki, 10 Cr. 008 (JFK), Dkt. 7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2010), aff'd, 369 F. App'x 152 (2d Cir. 2010) 26 United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099 (JO), 2002 WL 31410262 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) 26 United States v. Bodmer, No. 03 Cr. 947 (SAS), 2004 WL 169790 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2004) 28 United States v. Bohn, 330 F. Supp. 2d 960 (W.D. Tenn. 2004) 15 United States v. Bolero, 604 F. Supp. 1028 (S.D. Fla. 1985) 15 United States v. Boustani, 356 F. Supp. 3d 246 (E.D.N.Y.), affd, No. 19-344, 2019 WL 2070656 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2019) 28 United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79 (2d Or. 2019) 6, 25, 26 United States v. Chen, 820 F. Supp. 1205, 1209 (N.D. Cal. 1992) 15 United States v. Cilins, No. 13 Cr. 315 (WHP), 2013 WL 3802012 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2013) 16, 19 United States v. Cirillo, No. 99-1514, 1999 WL 1456536 (3d Cir. July 13, 1999) 15 United States v. Cohen, No. C 10-00547, 2010 WL 5387757 n.11 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010) 15 United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 27 United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311 (2d Cir. 2011) 7 United States v. Epstein, 155 F. Supp. 2d 323 (E.D. Pa. 2001) 28 United States v. Epstein, 425 F. Supp. 3d 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 15, 29 United States v. Esposito, 309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 27 United States v. Georgiou, No. 08-1220-M, 2008 WL 4306750 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2008) 15 United States v. Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2004) 15 United States v. Kazeem, No. 15 Cr. 172, 2015 WL 4645357 (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2015) 15 United States v. Khashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) IS, 28 United States v. Madoff 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 27 United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433 (2d Cir. 2001) 7, 29 United States v. Morrison, No. 16-MR-118, 2016 WL 7421924 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016) 15 United States v. Namer, 238 F.3d 425, 2000 WL 1872012 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2000) 19 United States v. Patrick Ho, 17 Cr. 779 (KBF), Dkt. 49 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2018) 28 United States v. Petrov, 15 Cr. 66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) 7, 8 United States v. Rowe, 02 Cr. 756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003) 7 United States v. Sabhani, 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007) 6 United States v. Salvagno, 314 F. Supp. 2d 115 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) 15 United States v. Stanton, No. 91 Cr. 889 (CHS), 1992 WL 27130 & n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1992) 18 United States v. Stroh, No. 396 Cr. 139, 2000 WL 1832956 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000) 15 United States v. Young, Nos. 12 Cr. 502, 12 Cr. 645, 2013 WL 12131300 (D. Utah Aug. 27, 2013) 15 United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773 (JG), 2000 WL 1134364 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) 26 EFTA00103382 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR RELEASE The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the defendant's renewed motion for release on bail, dated December 8, 2020 (the "Renewed Bail Motion"). Five months ago, after thorough briefing and a nearly two-hour hearing, this Court concluded that the defendant posed a serious flight risk and that no condition or combination of conditions could ensure her appearance in court. The defense now asks this Court to reverse that finding by essentially repackaging its prior arguments and presenting a more specific bail package. However, at the July 14, 2020 bail hearing in this case, this Court rejected the defendant's request to keep the record open to allow the defendant to do precisely what she has done here—namely, present more detailed information about her finances and a more concrete package—determining that further information about her financial picture would be irrelevant because no combination of conditions could ensure this defendant's appearance. The Court's conclusion was plainly correct, and the Renewed Bail Motion does nothing to undermine it. The offense conduct outlined in the Indictment remains incredibly serious, the evidence against the defendant remains strong, and the defendant continues to have extensive financial resources and foreign ties, as well as the EFTA00103383 demonstrated ability to live in hiding for the long term. In short, the defendant poses an extreme flight risk, no condition or combination of conditions can reasonably ensure her appearance in this District, and the Court should not alter its prior finding to that effect. BACKGROUND As detailed in the Indictment, the defendant is charged with facilitating the sexual abuse of multiple minor victims by Jeffrey Epstein between approximately 1994 and 1997. The defendant played a critical role in the scheme by helping to identify, entice, and groom minor girls to engage in sex acts with Epstein. The defendant's presence as an adult woman normalized Epstein's abusive behavior, and she even took part in at least some acts of sexual abuse. Together, the defendant and Epstein conspired to entice and cause minor victims to travel to Epstein's residences in different states, which the defendant knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse. Then, in an effort to cover up her crimes, the defendant lied under oath during a civil deposition, including when asked about her interactions with minor girls. Based on that conduct, the Indictment charges the defendant in six counts. Count One charges the defendant with conspiring with Epstein and others to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Two charges the defendant with enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2. Count Three charges the defendant with conspiring with Epstein and others to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Four charges the defendant with transporting minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2. Counts Five and Six charge the defendant with perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. 2 EFTA00103384  On July 2, 2020, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") arrested the defendant. Following extensive briefing, on July 14, 2020, the Court held a lengthy bail hearing. In its written and oral submissions, the defense urged the Court to release the defendant on bail. Among other things, the defense emphasized the defendant's family ties and residence in the United States (Dkt. 18 at 2, 3, 12), offered to hire a private security company to monitor the defendant (Id. at 20), noted that the defendant remained in the country and was in touch with the Government through counsel following Epstein's arrest (Dkt. 18 at 12-13; Tr. 49, 52-55), argued that the defendant went into hiding to avoid a media frenzy (Dkt. 18 at 14-16; Tr. 55-56), and argued that detention would hamper the ability to prepare a defense (Tr. 42, 67-69). Responding to the Government's concerns about the lack of transparency about the defendant's finances and six proposed co-signers, the defense specifically asked the Court to keep the proceedings open if the Court believed additional information or a more fulsome bond would be useful to the bail determination. (Tr. 52 ("And if the court determines that the conditions that we have proffered are insufficient or need further verification, as long as we can have some assurance of safety and confidentiality, we would recommend that the court keep the proceeding open, and we should be able to get whatever the court needs to satisfy it."); Tr. 59 ("Even if the court were to assume for purposes of today's proceeding that she has the means that the government claims she does, it does not affect the analysis. That is to be addressed in conditions, to be addressed if the court requires it, through verifications and further proceedings before the court."); Tr. 66 ("If the court desires to leave the proceeding open for a week and allow us to come back, if the court has concerns about the number of suretors, for example, verification information, information about financial issues, we think that, now that we have some ability to breathe a little bit, that we should be able to pull this together for the court's consideration."); Tr. 70 ("And if the court needs more information 3 EFTA00103385 from us, we would respectfully request that the court leave the proceeding open for a week so that we can try to satisfy the court because we want to.")). The Court declined the defense's request and instead concluded that the defendant posed a serious flight risk and that no combination of conditions could ensure her appearance. First, the Court found that "the nature and circumstances of the offense here weigh in favor of detention," given the statutory presumption of detention triggered by charges involving minor victims and the potential penalties those charges carry. (Tr. 82). Second, the Court determined that "[t]he government's evidence at this early juncture of the case appears strong" based on the "multiple victims who provided detailed accounts of Ms. Maxwell's involvement in serious crimes," as well as corroboration in the form of "significant contemporaneous documentary evidence." (Id.). Third, the Court found that the defendant's history and characteristics demonstrate that the defendant poses a risk of flight. (Tr. 83). In addressing that third factor, the Court emphasized the defendant's "substantial international ties," which "could facilitate living abroad," including "multiple foreign citizenships," "familial and personal connections abroad," and "at least one foreign property of significant value." (Tr. 83). The Court also noted that the defendant "is a citizen of France, a nation that does not appear to extradite its citizens." (Id.). The Court further found that the defendant "possesses extraordinary financial resources" and that "the representations made to Pretrial Services regarding the defendant's finances likely do not provide a complete and candid picture of the resources available." (Tr. 83-84). Although the Court recognized that the defendant "does have some family and personal connections to the United States," the Court highlighted "the absence of any dependents, significant family ties or employment in the United States" in support of the conclusion that "flight 4 EFTA00103386 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). 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 "[elven 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 EFTA00103387 the Court concluded that electronic monitoring and home security guards "would be insufficient" because the defendant could remove the monitor and evade security guards. (Tr. 87-88). Finally, the Court rejected the defense's arguments about the risks of COVID-19 and the difficulty of preparing a defense with an incarcerated client. In so doing, the Court noted that the defendant has no underlying conditions that place her at heightened risk of complications from COVID-19 and emphasized that the defendant had many months to prepare for trial. (Tr. 89-90). Viewing all of these factors together, the Court ordered the defendant detained pending trial. (Tr. 91). APPLICABLE LAW Under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141 et seq., federal courts are empowered to order a defendant detained pending trial upon a determination that the defendant poses a risk of flight. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). When seeking detention on this ground, "[t]he Government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence both that the defendant `presents an actual risk of flight' and that `no condition or combination of conditions could be imposed on the defendant that would reasonably assure his presence in court." United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79, 81 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Sabhani, 493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007)). The Bail Reform Act lists three factors to be considered in the detention analysis when the Government seeks detention based on flight risk: (1) the nature and circumstances of the crimes charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; and (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant, including the person's "character . . . [and] financial resources." See 18 U.S.C. § 3I42(g). If a judicial officer concludes that "no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required . . . such judicial officer shall order the detention of the person before trial." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX1). 6 EFTA00103388  Additionally, where, as here, a defendant is charged with committing an offense involving a minor victim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 or 2423, it shall be presumed, subject to rebuttal, that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E). In such a case, "the defendant `bears a limited burden of production—not a burden of persuasion—to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence that he does not pose . . . a risk of flight.'" United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001)). The act of producing such evidence, however, "does not eliminate the presumption favoring detention." Id. Rather, the presumption "remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court," while the Government retains the ultimate burden of demonstrating that the defendant presents a risk of flight. Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436. When the Court has already issued a detention order, the Bail Reform Act provides that the detention hearing "may be reopened . . . if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue of whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance" of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). Accordingly, "[a] court may properly reject an attempt to reopen a detention hearing where the new information presented is immaterial to the issue of flight risk." United States v. Petrov, 15 Cr. 66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015). Although courts in this Circuit have recognized that "a release order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing," United States v. Rowe, 02 Cr. 756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003), generally the moving party must establish that its arguments "warrant 7 EFTA00103389 reconsideration" by, for example, demonstrating "that the court overlooked information or incorrectly applied the law," or that failure to reconsider "would constitute manifest injustice." Petrov, 2015 WL 1102286 at *3. DISCUSSION Having already raised numerous arguments in its briefing and oral argument at the initial bail hearing in this case, the defense now asks this Court to reverse itself based on virtually the same arguments it already rejected. The Renewed Bail Application largely reiterates the same claims regarding the defendant's ties to the United States and her behavior after Epstein's arrest that the Court already found unpersuasive. To the extent the Renewed Bail Application presents new information, it consists primarily of financial data that was certainly known to the defendant at the time of her initial bail application and that the Court already assumed could be made available (and thus rejected as immaterial) when ordering detention. Ultimately, nothing in the Renewed Bail Application alters the analysis that led this Court to conclude that the defendant "poses a substantial actual risk of flight," and that no combination of conditions could assure her appearance. (Tr. 86). All three of the relevant Bail Reform Act factors still weigh heavily in favor of detention, and the defense claims to the contrary do not warrant a revisiting of this Court's well- reasoned and thorough prior decision. A. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense The first Bail Reform Act factor indisputably weighs in favor of detention in this case. The egregious conduct charged in the Indictment gives rise to a statutory presumption of detention, and the Renewed Bail Motion makes no effort to challenge this Court's prior conclusion that the nature and circumstances of the offense support detention. The charges in the Indictment describe horrendous conduct involving the sexual abuse of multiple minor victims. If convicted, the 8 EFTA00103390 defendant faces up to 35 years of incarceration, and may very well spend the remainder of her natural life in prison. The seriousness of the offenses make such a steep penalty a real possibility upon conviction, thereby giving the defendant an overwhelming incentive to flee if given the chance. In light of that strong incentive to flee, all three of the victims listed in the Indictment have asked the Government to convey to the Court that they continue to seek the defendant's detention. Additionally, pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act, one of the victims has provided a written statement urging the Court to deny bail, which is attached as Exhibit A hereto. That unanimous view of the victims reflects three related reasons that this factor weighs so heavily in favor of detention. First, the victims sincerely fear that if the defendant is released, she will be able to evade justice. Second, the pain that the victims still feel to this day as a result of the defendant's conduct supports the conclusion that this offense is especially serious and may result in a lengthy sentence. Third, as discussed further below, the victims' attention to this case and willingness to convey their views reflects their commitment to take the stand and testify at the defendant's trial, demonstrating the strength of the Government's case. In short, this factor offers no reason to reverse the prior detention order. B. The Strength of the Evidence Further incentivizing the defendant to flee, the Government's evidence remains strong. As the Court recognized when analyzing this factor at the July 14, 2020 hearing, the central evidence in the Government's case will come from the detailed testimony of three different victims, who will each independently describe how the defendant groomed and enticed them to engage in sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein. (Tr. 82). The Indictment itself contains a description of the accounts these victims have provided law enforcement, which corroborate each other in meaningful part. 9 EFTA00103391 Further, and as set forth below, those victims' accounts are corroborated by other evidence, including contemporary documents and other witnesses. In challenging this factor, the defense essentially restates its prior arguments on this score. At the original hearing, the defense argued that the Government's case was weak because it rested heavily on witness testimony regarding events from 25 years ago. (See Dkt. 18 at 19; Tr. 64-65). Having received and reviewed the discovery, the defense now contends the Government's corroborating evidence—some of which the Motion itself identifies-is insufficient and reiterates defense complaints that the discovery does not include other types of evidence.' (See Mot. at 30- 33). None of the defense arguments on this score changes the calculus for this factor. Three different victims are prepared to provide detailed testimony describing the defendant's role in Epstein's criminal scheme to sexually abuse them as minors. As demonstrated by the information outlined in the Indictment, these accounts corroborate each other by independently describing the same techniques used by the defendant and Epstein to groom and entice minor girls to engage in sex acts. Each victim will describe how the defendant befriended her, asked detailed questions about her life, and then normalized sexual activity around Epstein. Each victim will describe the use of massage as a technique to transition into sexual activity. Each victim will describe how the presence of an adult woman manipulated her into entering an abusive situation. In other words, this is a case that involves multiple witnesses describing the same course of conduct, substantially corroborating each other. At the initial bail hearing, the defendant also raised a series of legal challenges she intended to make on the face of the Indictment, all of which she contended weighed in favor of granting bail. After receiving discovery, the defense now appears to have abandoned those arguments, at least insofar as they pertain to the issue of bail. 10 EFTA00103392  In addition to corroborating each other, these victims' accounts are further corroborated by other witnesses and by documentary evidence, which has been produced in discovery. That evidence will make it virtually indisputable that these victims in fact met and interacted with both the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein at the times and locations they describe. Travel records, for example, confirm that both the defendant and Epstein traveled to particular locations where victims describe interacting with them. These include records demonstrating that the defendant traveled with Epstein and one of the minor victims on Epstein's private jet when the victim was a minor, consistent with the victim's anticipated testimony. Contemporaneous journal entries corroborate details of another victim's account, including the details of when, where, and how that victim came to meet Epstein' Other records confirm that Epstein paid high school tuition for one of the victims and that Epstein knew and communicated with another victim. Beyond this documentary evidence, additional witnesses will confirm that both the defendant and Epstein knew and interacted with certain minor victims when those victims were minors. In other words, the Government's evidence strongly corroborates the victims' testimony that they met and interacted with the defendant and Epstein at particular times and in particular places. In the instant motion, the defendant complains that the documentary evidence relevant to the three victims identified in the Indictment and produced to date is not sufficiently voluminous In its Renewed Bail Motion, the defense complains that the Government has produced only seven pages from this diary in discovery. To be clear, the Government produced all pages in its possession. Those pages are the only pages that relate to the charges in the Indictment, which pages describe that victim's first trip to meet Epstein. Because this victim stopped writing in her journal about a month after that first meeting with Epstein, there are no entries regarding the subsequent trip she took months later to visit Epstein, during which she met the defendant. This victim provided the Government with copies of her journal entries relating to Epstein and informed the Government that the remaining entries are personal in nature and have nothing to do with Epstein or the defendant. The defense has cited no authority suggesting that the Government is under any obligation to obtain and produce personal diary entries in the possession of a victim, especially when those entries have no bearing on the charges. 11 EFTA00103393 and that certain of the corroborating documentary evidence does not specifically name Maxwell. Leaving aside the fact that volume is not a reliable proxy for quality, by its very nature, abusive sexual contact is not the type of crime that leaves extensive documentary evidence. But, as described above, there are indeed travel records confirming the defendant herself traveled to locations described by certain of the victims at or around the relevant times. To the extent other corroborative documents refer only to Epstein, they still support these victims' testimony, which will detail their interactions with both the defendant and her co-conspirator, Epstein. In other words, documentary evidence does exist, and as the Court has already found, the combination of multiple victims describing the same scheme, together with documents and other witnesses confirming that those victims did indeed interact with the defendant and Epstein at the times and places they say they did, makes this a strong case. (Tr. 82). Taken together, this evidence confirms that the Government's case remains as strong as it was at the time of the defendant's arrest. Accordingly, this factor continues to weigh heavily in favor of detention. C. The Characteristics of the Defendant The defendant's history and characteristics include significant foreign ties, millions of dollars in cash that she largely transferred to her spouse in the last five years, among other assets, and a demonstrated willingness and sophisticated ability to live in hiding. The bulk of the arguments in the Renewed Bail Motion focus on this factor in a manner that largely rehashes claims that this Court already considered at the July 14, 2020 hearing. Any new information provided was either known by the defense at the time of the initial hearing, assumed to be the case when the Court analyzed this factor at the initial hearing, or, in the case of the defense report regarding 12 EFTA00103394 French law, is simply incorrect. Accordingly, the defendant's foreign ties, wealth, and skill at avoiding detection continue to weigh in favor of detention. First, there can be no serious dispute that the defendant has foreign ties. She is a citizen of three countries and holds three passports. As was already noted at the original hearing and is again evidenced in the Renewed Bail Application, the defendant has close relatives and friends who live abroad, as well as a multi-million dollar foreign property and at least one foreign bank account. (Tr. 83). In an attempt to minimize the defendant's foreign ties, the defense emphasizes the defendant's relatives and friends in the United States, history of residence in the United States, and United States citizenship. But the Court was already aware of those factors when making its original detention decision. (See Tr. 84; Dkt. 18 at 2, 12). The letters and documentation included in the Renewed Bail Motion simply prove points that were not in dispute. What that documentation does not do, however, is suggest that the defendant has the kind of ties to this country that come with any employment in the United States or any dependents living here. Indeed, as noted in the Pretrial Services Report, the defendant stated in July that she has no children and has no current employment. (Pretrial Services Report at 3). The Renewed Bail Motion fails to establish sufficiently strong ties to the United States that would prevent her from fleeing. Although the defendant now claims her marriage would keep her in the United States, her motion does not address the plainly inconsistent statements she made to Pretrial Services at the time of her arrest, when, as documented in the Pretrial Services Report, the defendant said she was "in the process of divorcing her husband." (Id.). On this point, it bears noting that the defendant's motion asks that she be permitted to live with her sister if granted bail, not her spouse. Moreover, the fact that the defendant's spouse has only now come forward to support the defendant should be afforded little weight given that he refused to come forward at the 13 EFTA00103395 time of her arrest. While a friend's desire to avoid publicity may be understandable, a spouse's desire to distance himself in that manner—particularly when coupled with the defendant's inconsistent statements about the state of their relationship—undermine her assertion that her marriage is a tie that would keep her in the United States? As for the defendant's asserted relationships with her stepchildren and other relatives in the United States, the defendant did not appear to have an issue living alone without these relatives while she was in hiding in New Hampshire, which undercuts any suggestion that these ties would keep her in the United States. In any event, the defendant could easily receive visits from her family members while living abroad, and, as noted, the defendant has multiple family members and friends who live abroad. In addition to those foreign connections and ample means to flee discussed further below, the defendant will have the ability, once gone, to frustrate any potential extradition. Attempting to downplay that concern, the defense relies on two legal opinions to claim that the defendant can irrevocably waive her extradition rights with respect to both the United Kingdom and France. (Mot. at 25; Def. Ex. U; Def. Ex. V). But the defendant's offer to sign a so-called "irrevocable waiver of her extradition rights" is ultimately meaningless: it provides no additional reassurance whatsoever and, with respect to France, is based on an erroneous assessment of France's position on the extradition of its nationals. (Mot. at 25). As an initial matter, the Government would need to seek the arrest of the defendant before such a waiver would even come into play. Even assuming the defendant could be located and apprehended—which is quite an assumption given the defendant's access to substantial wealth and 3 Adding to this confusion, bank records reflect that when the defendant and her spouse established a trust account in or about 2018, they filled out forms in which they were required to provide personal information, including marital status. On those forms, both the defendant and her spouse listed their marital status as "single." It is unclear why the defendant did not disclose her marital status to the bank, but that lack of candor on a bank form mirrors her lack of candor with Pretrial Services in this case, discussed further below. 14 EFTA00103396 demonstrated ability to live in hiding—numerous courts have recognized that purported waivers of extradition are unenforceable and effectively meaningless. See, e.g., United States v. Epstein, 425 F. Supp. 3d 306, 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ("The Defense proposal to give advance consent to extradition and waiver of extradition rights is, in the Court's view, an empty gesture. And, it comes into [play] only after [the defendant] has fled the Court's jurisdiction."); United States v. Morrison, No. 16-MR-118, 2016 WL 7421924, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016); United States v. Kazeem, No. 15 Cr. 172, 2015 WL 4645357, at *3 (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2015); United States v. Young, Nos. 12 Cr. 502, 12 Cr. 645, 2013 WL 12131300, at *7 (D. Utah Aug. 27, 2013); United States v. Cohen, No. C 10-00547, 2010 WL 5387757, at *9 n.11 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010); United States v. Bohn, 330 F. Supp. 2d 960, 961 (W.D. Tenn. 2004); United States v. Stroh, No. 396 Cr. 139, 2000 WL 1832956, at *5 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000); United States v. Botero, 604 F. Supp. 1028, 1035 (S.D. Fla. 1985).4 For very good reason: Any defendant who signs such a purported waiver and then flees will assuredly contest the validity and/or voluntariness of the waiver, and will get to do so in 4 The defense argues that several courts "have addressed concerns about a defendant's ties to a foreign state that enforces extradition waiver by requiring the defendant to execute such a waiver as a condition of release." (Mot. at 26). In the cases cited by the defendant, the courts approved the release of the defendants based on the particular facts, but did not address at all the question of whether a waiver of extradition is enforceable. See United States v. Khashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048, 1050-52 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (noting, among other things, that the Government's case was "novel," and presented an "untried theory of liability" and that the defendant not only waived his right to appeal extradition in Switzerland but that he traveled immediately to the United States for arraignment, and that his country's government committed to ensuring his appearance at trial); United States v. Salvagno, 314 F. Supp. 2d 115, 119 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) (denying Government motion to remand after trial where court found defendant not likely to flee); United States v. Chen, 820 F. Supp. 1205, 1209, 1212 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (reconsidering pretrial release where case had "taken a number of surprising turns," including the "suppression of video evidence, the indeterminate stay of proceedings, the overall uncertainty of the government's evidence"); United States v. Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129, 133 (D.D.C. 2004); United States v. Grillo, No. 99-1514, 1999 WL 1456536, at *2 (3d Cir. July 13, 1999); see also United States v. Georgiou, No. 08-1220- M, 2008 WL 4306750, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2008) (distinguishing Cirillo on the facts and noting that "defense counsel concedes that a waiver of extradition may not be enforceable in Canada, a fact the court in Cirillo did not mention in its opinion"). 15 EFTA00103397 the jurisdiction of her choosing (te., the one to which she chose to flee). The Department of Justice's Office of International Affairs ("OIA") is unaware of any country anywhere in the world that would consider an anticipatory extradition waiver binding. Indeed, the defendant's own experts' conclusion—that "because of these waivers and other factors, it is highly unlikely that she would be able to resist extradition successfully," (Mot. at 27)—leaves open the possibility that she could avoid extradition. Such an outcome is virtually a certainty as to France, a country of which the defendant is a citizen and which does not extradite its citizens to the United States. To confirm this fact, after receiving the Renewed Bail Motion, the Government, through OIA, contacted the French Ministry of Justice ("MOJ") to clarify whether there is any circumstance under which France would extradite a French citizen to the United States. In response, the MOJ provided the Government with a letter setting forth the relevant law and conclusively stating that France does not extradite its citizens to the United States. That letter in its original French, as well as an English translation of the letter, are attached hereto as Exhibit B. In that letter, the MOJ makes clear that France does not extradite its nationals outside the European Union (regardless of the existence of dual citizenship), including to the United States, and has never derogated from that principle outside the European Union. See Ex. B; see also United States v. Cilins, No. 13 Cr. 315 (WHP), 2013 WL 3802012, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2013) ("Because France refuses to extradite its citizens, Cilins can avoid prosecution on this Indictment if he can reach French soil."). In other words, even assuming the Government could locate the defendant, if she flees to France, her citizenship in that country will completely bar her extradition. Any purported waiver of extradition executed in the United States would not be enforceable against the defendant in France because French law embodies an inflexible principle that its citizens will not be extradited 16 EFTA00103398 to other countries outside of the European Union, including the United States. As set forth in Exhibit B, according to the MOJ, the French Code of Criminal Procedure "absolutely prohibits the extradition of a person who had French nationality at the time of the commission of the acts for which extradition is requested." (Ex. B at 3). That the defendant is a citizen of multiple countries is of no moment. (See id.). In applying the Bilateral Extradition Treaty between the United States and France and the "general principle of non-extradition of nationals under French law, France systematically refuses to grant the extradition of French nationals to the American judicial authorities." (Id. at 4). Thus, contrary to the suggestion of the defense submission, any anticipatory waiver of extradition would not be effective under French law, and would not be recognizable by French courts in any extradition process, or otherwise enforceable. The defendant's expert writes that "[i]n the recent past," he is "not aware that the French authorities would have had to address the situation in which the United States sought extradition of a French citizen who was also a United States citizen. Thus, there is no precedent to draw from in that regard." (Def. Ex. V. at 2). That is not so. France has previously rejected such a request. For example, in 2006, Hans Peterson, an American citizen and French national, turned himself in to French authorities in Guadeloupe and confessed to committing a murder in the United States. Despite turning himself in to French authorities, Peterson remained beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement despite the repeated requests of OIA and U.S. officials. See Durbin, Schakowsky, Emanuel Urge French Justice Minister To Ensure Justice Is Done During Hans Peterson Retrial (Nov. 16, 2012), https://www.durbin.senate.govinewsroorn/press-releases/durbin-schakowsky- emanuel-urge-french-justice-minister-to-ensure-justice-is-done-during-hans-peterson-retrial; see also Senators' letter to French government (Mar. 14, 2008), https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna23601583 (citing a letter from the MOJ to the Department of 17 EFTA00103399 Justice on August 22, 2007 which provides that the "Ministry of Justice considers the American- born, U.S. citizen Peterson to also be a French national and that the extradition request has been denied"). Indeed, the Government is unaware of any instance in which France has ever extradited a French citizen to the United States. (See Ex. B at 4 ("[T]he principle of non-extradition of nationals is a principle of extradition law from which France has never deviated outside the framework of the European Union.")). Simply put, the Court was correct when it determined at the initial bail hearing that France does not appear to extradite its own citizens. (Tr. 83). The defendant's supposed waiver of her extradition rights with respect to the United Kingdom should similarly be afforded no weight. Although an anticipatory waiver of extradition may be admissible in extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom, such a waiver is by no means binding, authoritative, or enforceable. See United States v. Stanton, No. 91 Cr. 889 (CHS), 1992 WL 27130, at *2 & n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1992) (denying modification of defendant's bail where defendant indicated willingness to waive extradition proceeding by providing extradition waivers, as British authorities advised that extradition waivers were possible only in cases where the fugitive actually appeared before a British magistrate after the filing of an extradition request, and concluding that such a waiver was not an "enforceable undertaking"). Under the United Kingdom's Extradition Act of 2003, consent to extradition is permitted, "if (and only if) [a person] has the assistance of counsel or a solicitor to represent him in the proceedings before the appropriate judge." Extradition Act 2003, § 127(9), https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ulcpga/ 2003/41. As such, a judge in the United Kingdom must independently evaluate any waiver of extradition in real time, thereby necessarily rendering any anticipatory waiver executed before the defendant is found in the United Kingdom meaningless. Id. at §127. In other words, consent given 18 EFTA00103400 to authorities in the United States would not be binding in the United Kingdom, and the defendant could easily decide not to consent to extradition once found abroad. Further, a judge in the United Kingdom must make an independent decision on extradition based on the circumstances at the time the defendant is before the court, including the passage of time, forum, and considerations of the individual's mental or physical condition. See, e.g., id. at §§ 82, 83A, & 91. Even if a final order of extradition has been entered by a court, the Secretary of State still has the discretion to deny extradition. See id. at § 93. The Government understands from OIA that extradition from the United Kingdom is frequently extensively litigated, uncertain, and subject to multiple levels of appeal. Moreover, even where the process is ultimately successful, it is lengthy and time-consuming. Ultimately, although the defendant purports to be willing to waive her right to challenge being extradited to the United States, she simply cannot do so under the laws of France and the United Kingdom, and she would be free to fight extradition once in those countries. And, of course, the defendant could choose to flee to another jurisdiction altogether, including one with which the United States does not have an extradition treaty. The defendant's written waivers of extradition from France and the United Kingdom certainly