{"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_count": 33, "url": "https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00081947", "pdf_url": "https://epstein-data.com/pdf/EFTA00081947.pdf", "pages": [{"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 0, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed \nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK \nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \nGovernment, \n- against - \nJEFFREY EPSTEIN, \nDefendant. \n• \n• \nx \n~'/1WI/1e P— \n1- t 13 \nUSDC SDNY \nDOCUMENT \nELECTRONICALLY FILED \nDOC #: \nDATE FILEaft \n19 CR. 490 (RMB) \nDECISION & ORDER \nREMANDING DEFENDANT \nA. Background \nThis ruling follows the Court's bail hearing held on July IS, 2019. The issue before the \nCourt is whether the Defendant should continue to be remanded (incarcerated) pending trial or \nwhether he should be granted release while the case proceeds. No matter the answer to this \nquestion and no matter what has been said in Court in analyzing the matter. this is a criminal \ncase and the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. is innocent of the Federal charges alleged against him \nnow and until such time, if it comes, that a jury or the Court finds (after fair and thorough \nconsideration of the facts and the law) that he is guilty. 5sg Transcript. dated July 8, 2019 \n(\"7/8/19 Tr.\"), at 2-3; Transcript, dated July 15, 2019 (\"7/15/19 Tr.\"), at 40. It should also be \nborne in mind that the Court has not (yet) been presented with a motion to dismiss the \nIndictment. \nThis is a federal as opposed to a state case. We proceed under federal law and federal \nrules. The key federal statute that applies here is 18 U.S.C. § 1591 which sets forth the crime of \nsex trafficking with which Mr. Epstein is charged. Mr. Epstein is also charged with conspiring \nwith others to commit sex trafficking under 18 U.S.C. § 371. \nWith respect to the issue of remand versus release, 18 U.S.C. § 3142 applies. It sets forth \na presumption in favor of remand, an exception to the presumption in most cases which favors \nEFTA00081947\n", "char_count": 1761}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 1, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 2 of 33 \npretrial release. § 3142 states that: \"if there is probable cause to believe that the person \ncommitted . . an offense involving a minor victim under section ... 1591,\" then \"it shall he \npresumed that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the \nappearance of the person as required and the safety of the community.\" 18 U.S.C. § \n3142(eX3XE) (emphasis added); \nUnited States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. \n1986). The Indictment in this case was returned by a grand jury thus establishing probable cause \nthat the defendant committed the crimes of sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy. Sags \nUnited States v. Contreras, 776 F.2d 51, 55 (2d Cir. 1985) (\"[A]n indictment returned by a duly \nconstituted grand jury conclusively establishes the existence of probable cause for the purpose of \ntriggering the rebuttable presumptions set forth in § 3142(e)\"). In most federal cases the \nrebuttable presumption that applies favors pretrial release, not remand. \nThere is another very important issue to be considered in this case. It has to do with \n\"victims\" of the crimes charged in the Indictment. Victims refer to the \"minor\" girls who arc \nalleged to have been sexually trafficked by the Defendant. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3771. victims are \nentitled to be heard in court, including on the question of whether the defendant is to be released \nor remanded. Victims have, among other things, been given the opportunity to testify at the bail \nhearing. \nB. Counsels' Submissions \nThe Government's letter application, dated July 8, 2019, requests that the Court remand \nMr. Epstein. It argues that Mr. Epstein \"poses Ban acute danger to the community\" and, \ngrounded in past experience with this Defendant, that \"if [Mr. Epstein is] allowed to remain out \non bail, the defendant could attempt to pressure and intimidate witnesses and potential witnesses \nin this case, including victims and their famili\n... [truncated, 2070 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/1 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=1]", "char_count": 2070}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 2, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 3 of 33 \n11, Ex. I at 1. The Government also contends that \"pin light of the strength of the Government's \nevidence and the substantial incarceratory term the defendant would face upon conviction [45 \nyears], there is an extraordinary risk of flight, particularly given the defendant's exorbitant \nwealth, his ownership of and access to private planes capable of international travel, and his \nsignificant international ties.\" It \nThe Government also provides the following background information: \"In or about 2005. \nthe defendant was investigated by local police in Palm Beach, Florida, in connection with \nallegations that he had committed similar sex offenses against minor girls. The investigation \nultimately also involved federal authorities, namely the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern \nDistrict of Florida and the FBI's Miami Office, and included interviews with victims based in the \nPalm Beach area, including some of the alleged victims relevant to Count One of the instant \nIndictment. In the fall of 2007, the Defendant entered into a non-prosecution agreement (\"NPA\") \nwith the Southern District of Florida in connection with the conduct at issue in that investigation, \nwhich the non-prosecution agreement identified as including investigations into the defendant's \nabuse of minor girls in the Palm Beach area.\" a at 3. \"In June 2008, the defendant pled guilty in \n[Florida] state court to one count of procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution, a \nfelony, and one count of solicitation of prostitution, [also] a felony. As a result, the defendant \nwas designated as a sex offender with registration requirements under the national Sex Offender \nRegistration and Notification Act.\" Id. \nThe Defense moved on July 11, 2019, for pretrial release of Mr. Epstein, arguing that \n\"Mr. Epstein's strict compliance with the various monitoring requirements associated with his \nsex-offender registration actually dec\n... [truncated, 2169 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/2 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=2]", "char_count": 2169}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 3, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 4 of 33 \nDefense proposes what they describe as \"a stringent set of [14] conditions that will effectively \nguarantee [Mr. Epstein's] appearance and abate any conceivable danger he's claimed to present.\" \nId. at 1. The 14 conditions do not include private security guards 24/7. The 14 conditions do \ninclude: (I) \"Home detention in Mr. Epstein's Manhattan residence, with permission to leave \nonly for medical appointments as approved by Pretrial Services, including (at the Court's \ndiscretion) the installation of surveillance cameras at the front and rear entrances to ensure \ncompliance\"; (2) \"Electronic monitoring with a Global Positioning System\"; (3)\"An agreement \nnot to seek or obtain any new passport during the pendency of this matter\"; (4)\"Consent to U.S. \nextradition from any country and waiver of all rights against such [e]xtradition\"; (5) \"A \nsubstantial [unspecified] personal recognizance bond in an amount set by the Court after \nreviewing additional information regarding Mr. Epstein's finances ....\"; (6) \"The bond shall be \nsecured by a mortgage on the Manhattan residence, valued at roughly $77 million. Mr. Epstein's \nprivate jet can be pledged as further collateral\"; (7) \"Mr. Epstein's brother Mark will serve as a \nco-surety of the bond, which shall be further secured by a mortgage on Mark's home in West \nPalm Beach, Florida. Mr. Epstein's friend David Mitchell will also serve as a co-surety and \npledge his investment interests in two properties to secure the bond\"; (8) \"Mr. Epstein shall \nderegistcr or otherwise ground his private jet\"; (9) Mr. Epstein \"shall demobilize, ground, and/or \ndercgister all vehicles or any other means of transportation in the New York area, providing \nparticularized information as to each vehicle's location;\" (10) \"Mr. Epstein will provide Pretrial \nServices and/or the government random access to his residence\"; (11) \"No person shall enter the \nresidence, other than Mr. Epste\n... [truncated, 2282 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/3 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=3]", "char_count": 2282}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 4, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 5 of 33 \nlive in Mr. Epstein's residence and report any violation to Pretrial Services and/or the Court\"; \n(14) \"Any other condition the Court deems necessary to reasonably assure Mr. Epstein's \nappearance.\" Id. at 3-4. The Defense also proposes as a \"fallback\" \"round-the-clock, privately \nfunded security guards [which] will virtually guarantee - not just reasonably assure - Mr. \nEpstein's presence in the circumstances of this case.\" Id. at 10. The bail package originally was \nnot accompanied by a financial statement reflecting Mr. Epstein's finances. However, on July \n12, 2019, the Defense filed a one-page document which includes five groups of assets owned by \nMr. Epstein totaling $559,120,954. Dkt. 14 at 18. \nThe Government responded to the Defense motion on July 12, 2019, arguing, among \nother things. that Mr. Epstein \"has a history of obstruction and manipulation of witnesses, \nincluding ... as recently as within the past year. when media reports about his conduct [in \nFlorida] reemerged.\" Dkt. 11 at 1. The Government filing was made against a \"backdrop of \nsignificant—and rapidly-expanding—evidence, serious charges, and the prospect of a lengthy \nprison sentence.\" Id. It contends that the defendant's proposed conditions of release arc \n\"woefully inadequate.\" Id. \nThe Court also received a letter from the Government, dated July 16, 2019, providing, \namong other things, details about allegedly suspicious payments made by the Defendant in 2018; \na Palm Beach, Florida police report; Mr. Epstein's expired Austrian passport in another name but \nwith Mr. Epstein's photo; and a pile of cash and diamonds found in Mr. Epstein's safe. For \nexample, the Government says: \"[R]ccords from Institution-1 show that on or about November \n30, 2018, or two days after the series in the Miami Herald began, the defendant wired $100,000 \nfrom a trust account he controlled to ..., an individual named as a potential co-conspirator.\"\n... [truncated, 2112 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/4 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=4]", "char_count": 2112}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 5, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 6 of 33 \ntrust account to ..., [an individual] who was also named as a potential co-conspirator.\" Id. at I-\n2. According to the Government, the second individual \"is also one of the employees identified \nin the Indictment, which alleges that she and two other identified employees facilitated the \ndefendant's trafficking of minors by. among other things, contacting victims and scheduling their \nsexual encounters with the defendant at his residences in Manhattan and Palm Beach, Florida.\" \nId. at 2. \nBy letter, dated July 16, 2019. Defense counsel states, among other things, that the Court \nshould reject the idea that \"there's literally nothing a person of Epstein's means could say, do or \npledge to rebut the operative presumption and make himself eligible for release.\" Dkt. 24 at 2. \n\"Epstein contends that § 1591 and the concomitant remand presumption do not contemplate or \ncover the core conduct at issue here: performing sexual massages for money.\" Id. at 1-2 n.1. \nDefense counsel also states that \"Epstein certainly recognizes the Court's request for further \ntransparency and is committed to providing a complete and accurate disclosure. Accordingly, \nwe propose that the Court preliminarily accept the initial [financial] disclosure proffered last \nFriday and, if intending to grant bail. include a release condition directing Epstein to tender a \ncomprehensive forensic accounting of his finances as expeditiously as practicable.\" Id. at 4. By \nletters, dated July 16 and July 17, 2019, Defense counsel also submitted information regarding \nEpstein's New Mexico sex offender registration status. Defense counsel also stated that Epstein \ntraveled extensively over the last eight months and \"invariably returned to the to the United \nStates. That inescapable reality emphatically proves he won't flee and entitles him to release — \non any and all conditions the Court deems appropriate.\" Id. at 8. \n6 \nEFTA00081952\n", "char_count": 1987}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 6, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 7 of 33 \nC. Indictment \nA grand jury voted to indict Mr. Epstein on or about July 2, 2019. The Indictment \ncharges Mr. Epstein with two felonies involving minor girls some as young as 14. Count I \nincludes conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minor girls. in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and \nCount II includes sex trafficking of minor girls, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591. It states: \n\"[F]rom at least in or about 2002, up to and including at least in or about 2005, Jeffrey Epstein.. \n. . enticed and recruited, and caused to be enticed and recruited, minor girls to visit his mansion \nin Manhattan. New York . . . and his estate in Palm Beach, Florida, . . . to engage in sex acts with \nhim, after which he would give the victims hundreds of dollars in cash.\" Indictment, dated July \n2. 2019 (\"Indictment\"), • 2. \"Moreover, and in order to maintain, and increase his supply of \nvictims, Epstein also paid certain of his victims to recruit additional girls to be similarly abused \nby Epstein. In this way. Epstein created a vast network of underage victims for him to sexually \nexploit in locations including New York and Palm Beach.\" Id. \nThe Indictment also charges that -the victims . . . were as young as 14 years old at the \ntime they were abused by [Mr. Epstein] . . . and were, for various reasons, often particularly \nvulnerable to exploitation.\" Id. 3. \"Mr. Epstein intentionally sought out minors and knew that \nmany of his victims were in fact under the age of 18, [] because, in some instances, minor \nvictims expressly told him their age.\" Id. \nFollowing his arrest, on Monday. July 8, 2019, Mr. Epstein was arraigned and presented \nwith the Indictment by Magistrate Judge Henry Pittman. \nD. Legal Principles Governing Release Versus Remand \nUnder the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142. a Court can order a defendant's detention \nif it determines that the defendant is either (1) a danger to the community or (2) a risk of \n... [truncated, 2025 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/6 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=6]", "char_count": 2025}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 7, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 8 of 33 \n18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). A Court does not need to find both bases are proven to order a defendant's \ndetention. See jj; United States v. Blanco 570 F. App'x 76, 78 (2d Cir. 2014). Dangerousness \nmeans that the defendant is a \"danger to the safety of any other person or the community.\" 18 \nU.S.C. § 3142. A finding of dangerousness must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. \nSee. e.g., United States v. Ferranti. 66 F.3d 540, 542 (2d Cir. 1995). \"Where there is a strong \nprobability that a person will commit additional crimes if released, the need to protect the \ncommunity becomes sufficiently compelling that detention is, on balance, appropriate.\" United \nStates v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 403 (2d Cir. 1985). \"[E]ven a single incident of witness \ntampering .. . [may be] sufficient to revoke bail.\" LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 134. \nTo order detention based upon risk of flight, the Court must find by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that \"that no conditions could reasonably assure the defendant's presence at trial.\" \nSee. e.a., Vnited States v. Jackson 823 F.2d 4, 5 (2d Cir. 1987); 18 U.S.C. § 3142. \"[T]he \nconstitutional limits on a detention period based on dangerousness to the community may be \nlooser than the limits on a detention period based solely on risk of flight. In the former case, \nrelease risks injury to others, while in the latter case. release risks only the loss of a conviction.\" \nUnited States v. Milian, 4 F.3d 1038, 1048 (2d Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Arena. 986 \nF.2d 628, 631 (2d Cr. 1993)). A bail package that \"may reasonably assure the appearance of [the \ndefendant] at trial will not [necessarily] assure the safety of the community.\" United States v. \nBagilugusz, 950 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1991). \nThe Bail Reform Act sets forth the following four factors to be considered in the \nrelease/remand analysis: (I) the nature and circumstances of the crime(s) charged; (2) the weight \n\n... [truncated, 2217 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/7 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=7]", "char_count": 2217}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 8, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 9 of 33 \ndefendant's release. 18 U.S.C. § 3I42(g). \"The weight afforded to each factor under section \n3142(g) is within the `special province' of the district court.\" United States v. Paulino, 335 F. \nSupp. 3d 600, 610 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 196 (2d Cir. \n1987)). \n\"The rules concerning admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to the \npresentation and consideration of information at the [release/remand] hearing.- 18 U.S.C. § \n3142(0(2) (emphasis added). For example, the Government is entitled to present evidence \nsupporting remand by way of proffer. among other means. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(1)(2); see also \nUnited States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000) (\"bail hearings are typically \ninformal affairs, not substitutes for trial or even for discovery\"). 18 U.S.C. § 3142(0(2O1) \nexpressly states that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply at bail hearings; thus, courts \noften base detention decisions on hearsay evidence. United States v. Abuhamra 389 F.3d 309, \n321 n.7 (2d Cir. 2004) \"District courts [are afforded] wide discretion regarding the scope of such \nhearings ....\" United Siates v. Bartok, 472 F. App'x 25, 27 (2d Cir. 2012). \nE. The Presumption of Remand in 18 U.S.C. § 1591 Cases \nA 18 U.S.C. § 1591 case involving sexual victimization of a minor is unusual in that it \nincludes a presumption in favor of pretrial detention, reflecting the significant harm caused by \nsuch a crime. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX3)(E). The presumption is that no condition or combination of \nconditions will reasonably assure against flight or danger to the community. United States v. \nEnglish, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX3XE)). Mr. Epstein may \nrebut the presumption by \"coming forward with evidence that he does not pose a danger to the \ncommunity or a risk of flight.\" United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001). The \nGover\n... [truncated, 2109 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/8 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=8]", "char_count": 2109}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 9, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 10 of 33 \ncommunity (by clear and convincing evidence) and that Mr. Epstein presents a risk of flight (by \na preponderance of the evidence). 11 Even if rebuttal evidence is presented, \"the presumption \nfavoring detention does not disappear entirely.\" Id. at 436. \"[It] remains a factor to be considered \namong those weighed by the district court.\" Id. \nF. Mr. Epstein Poses a Danger To Others And To the Community \nThe Court begins with \"dangerousness\" because that concept is at the heart of this case. It \nfinds that the Government has shown by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Epstein \nthreatens the safety of another person and of the community, as follows on pages 10-21: \n• \nVictims Have Advised The Court That They Would Fear For Their Safety If Mr. \nEpstein Were Released \nVictims have \"specifically conveyed\" to the Government that any form of release of the \nDefendant, including home detention with full-time private guards, could \"result in [their] \nharassment and abuse.\" Dkt. 11 at 4. At the bail hearing on July 15, 2019, two victims movingly \ntestified about their past sexual encounters with Mr. Epstein when they were minors \n7/15/19 Tr. at 72; see also S. REP. 108-191 (\"CVRA Legislative history\"), at \n22 (In enacting the CVRA, Congress stated that \"[V]ictims deserve the right to be heard at \nspecific points in the criminal justice process,\" including bail hearings. \"Giving victims a voice \nnot only improves the quality of the process but can also be expected to often provide important \nbenefits to victims.\"). Ms, \nwas introduced by her counsel, \nand stated \nthat she was \nwhen she \"had the misfortune of meeting Jeffrey Epstein [in] New \nYork.\" 7/15/19 Tr. at 72. Ms.Msaid that Mr. Epstein \"flew [her] tol \narid was \n\"inappropriate\" with her. a She was reluctant to go into details about her experience with Mr. \nEpstein. Id. at 73. Ms. \nopposes Mr. Epstein's pretrial release because she believes other \n10 \nEFT\n... [truncated, 2010 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/9 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=9]", "char_count": 2010}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 10, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 11 of 33 \nEpstein victims would \"continu[e] to be victimized\" and that Mr. Epstein's wealth and privilege \nand notoriety would make it difficult for \"[other] victims to come forward.\" Id. at 72. \nMs. \nwas introduced by her counsel, \n\"sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein starting at the \nand said she was \nId. at 73-74. She asked the Court \nto \"keep [Mr. Epstein] in detention [] for the safety of any other girls out there that are going \nthrough what [she's] going through.\" Id. at 74. \nsaid that Mr. Epstein is a \"scary person \nto have walking the streets.\" a \n• \nMr. Epstein Poses A Threat to Additional Young Girls If He Is Released \nAt the remand/release hearing on Monday, July 15. 2019, as noted, the Court heard \npoignant testimony from two of Mr. Epstein's alleged victims about their fears and anxiety over \nhis potential release, even if under strict conditions of home confinement. The Court is also \nconcerned for new victims. \nMr. Epstein's alleged excessive attraction to sexual conduct with or in the presence of \nminor girls — which is said to include his soliciting and receiving massages from young girls and \nyoung women perhaps as many as four times a day — appears likely to be uncontrollable. Sgs \nUnited States v. Minnie' 128 F. App'x 827, 829-30 (2d Cir. 2005) (defendant's alleged sex \ncrimes were \"of an addictive sexual nature that cannot be suppressed simply by a restrictive set \nof bail conditions\"). Accordingly, Mr. Epstein's past sexual conduct is not likely to have abated \nor been successfully suppressed by fierce determination, as his Defense Counsel suggests. \nDefense Counsel contends that: \"[H]e wasn't a predator that couldn't control his conduct. He \ndisciplined himself.\" 7/15/19 Tr. at 31-32. Defense Counsel also argues that \"appreciating the \ngravity of these charges ... putting aside the age of these witnesses and putting the consent issue \naside, it's not like [Epstein is] an out-of-control rap\n... [truncated, 2069 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/10 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=10]", "char_count": 2069}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 11, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 12 of 33 \nMr. Epstein's future behavior will be consistent with past behavior, including the trove of \"lewd \nphotographs of young-looking women or girls,\" which were recently uncovered during the July \n6-7, 2019, search of Mr. Epstein's East 71st Street mansion. ica Dkt. 11, Ex. 1 at 9. The search \nresults suggest the \"possibility that defendant could target another vulnerable victim.\" See \nUnited States v. Baker, 349 F. Supp. 3d 1113, 1135 (D.N.M. 2018) (where the defendant was \nalleged to specifically target \"vulnerable women\" and where he attempted to contact an alleged \nvictim, the court was persuaded that the defendant \"would be a danger to society if released\"). \nDespite having been convicted of the above mentioned (two) Florida sex crimes (in 2008) \ninvolving an underage girl, Mr. Epstein. as noted, maintained at his New York residence a \"vast \ntrove\" of sexually suggestive photographs of nude underage and adult girls. Dkt. 11, Ex. 1 at 9. \nThat is, during the July 6-7, 2019 authorized search of Mr. Epstein's NYC residence, the FBI \nfound a \"substantial collection of photographic trophies of his victims and other young females.\" \nDkt. I I at 10. This evidence includes compact discs labeled \"Young [Redacted Name] + \n[Redacted Name],\" \"Mist nudes 1,\" and Girl pies nude.- Id. The Government contends that this \nevidence includes hundreds or perhaps thousands of \"sexually suggestive photographs\" of nude \nunderage girls and women, and that it is corroborative in nature. Id. And, it is consistent with \nvictim recollections of the inside of Mr. Epstein's residence. Dkt. 11, Ex. I at 9. This newly \ndiscovered evidence also suggests that Mr. Epstein poses \"ongoing and forward-looking danger.\" \nkg Dkt. 11 at 10; see also Baker 349 F. Supp. 3d at 1135; United States v. Goodwin, 2015 WL \n6386568, at '3 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 21, 2015). \n• \nThe § 1591 Presumption Of Pretrial Remand Reflects The Seriousness Of Mr. \nEpstein's Al\n... [truncated, 2215 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/11 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=11]", "char_count": 2215}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 12, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 13 of 33 \n4'10 (D.D.C. May 22, 2019). The presumption of remand \"reflects Congress's substantive \njudgment that particular classes of offenders should ordinarily be detained prior to trial.\" United \nStates v. Stone, 608 F.3d 939, 945 (6th Cir. 2010). Other serious offenses that are accompanied \nby the presumption of remand are: Kidnapping (18 U.S.C. § 1201); Aggravated Sexual Abuse \n(18 U.S.C. § 2241); Sexual Abuse (18 U.S.C. § 2242); Offenses Resulting in Death (18 U.S.C. § \n2245); Sexual Exploitation of Children (18 U.S.C. § 2251); Selling or Buying of Children (18 \nU.S.C. § 2251); Production of Sexually Explicit Depictions of a Minor for importation into the \nUnited States (18 U.S.C. § 2260); Coercion and Enticement (18 U.S.C. § 2422); Transport of \nMinors (18 U.S.C. § 2423); Use of Interstate Facilities to Transmit Information About a Minor \n(18 U.S.C. § 2425). 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E). \nThe presumption of remand does not disappear even when rebutted. Martir, 782 F.2d at \n1144. If the defendant comes forward with evidence that he will not endanger the community or \nflee the jurisdiction, the presumption \"is not erased.\" See United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d \n702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986). \"Rather, the presumption remains in the case as an evidentiary finding \nmilitating against release, to be weighted along with other evidence.\" United States v. Hir, 517 \nF.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Martir 782 F.2d at 1144 (\"The concern underlying the \npresumption applies to the general class of defendants charged with one of the specified \noffenses—not merely to defendants who fail to produce rebuttal evidence. Were the presumption \n... to vanish upon any showing . . ., courts would be giving too little deference to Congress' \nfindings regarding this class) (emphasis in original). \n• \nThe U.S. Pretrial Services Department Recommends To The Court That Mr. \nEpstein Continue to Be Remanded \nThe Pretrial Services r\n... [truncated, 2182 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/12 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=12]", "char_count": 2182}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 13, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 14 of 33 \nreasonably assure ... the safety of the community\" if Mr. Epstein is released. Pretrial Services \nReport, dated July 8, 2019, at 4. Pretrial Services also concluded that Mr. Epstein is a flight risk \nand recommends that he be detained for that reason as well. Id. \nIn support of its assessment of Mr. Epstein's dangerousness, Pretrial Services cites the \nfollowing: the \"Nature of [Mr. Epstein's currently charged] Instant Offence,\" a. sex trafficking \nand conspiracy involving minor girls; Mr. Epstein's \"Prior Arrests,\" u,s, in Florida in 2006; Mr. \nEpstein's \"History [and] Conviction Involving [a] Sex [Offense],\" which principally refers to \nDefendant's 2008 conviction(s) for procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution (a \nfelony) and for solicitation of prostitution (also a felony); Mr. Epstein's status as a registered sex \noffender in New York, Florida and the Virgin Islands; and Mr. Epstein's \"Pattern of Similar \nCriminal Activity History.\" a \n• \nThe Seriousness Of T he Crimes That Mr. Epstein Ilas Been Charged With Is Also \nReflected In The Fact That The Crimes Involve Minor ( hildren \nMr. Epstein is said by the Government to be \"a serial sexual predator\" who allegedly \nvictimized dozens (or more) of minor girls, including a 14 year old.' He was involved in and \nundertook the alleged sexual activity in several locations, including, his mansion in Manhattan \nand his estate in Palm Beach, Florida. Indictment 12. By \"actively encourage[ing] certain of his \n[minor] victims to recruit additional girls to be similarly sexually abused,\" Mr. Epstein is said to \nhave \"created a vast network of underage victims for him to exploit.\" Dkt. 11, Ex. 1 at 2. \nThe Government alleges that Mr. Epstein \"intentionally sought out—and knew that he \nwas abusing—minors. Indeed, in some instances. his victims expressly told him they were \nI Mr. Epstein is reported to have remarked that: \"I'm not a 'sexual predator,\n... [truncated, 2232 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/13 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=13]", "char_count": 2232}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 14, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 15 of 33 \nunderage before or during the period in which he abused them.\" a  The crimes with which Mr. \nEpstein is charged carry a maximum sentence of 45 years of incarceration. Id. at 5. \"[T]he \ndeprivation of liberty imposed by imprisonment makes that penalty the best indicator of whether \nthe legislature considered an offense to be ... 'serious.'\" United States v. Dugan, 667 F.3d 84, \n86 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322, 326 (1996)). \nAnd, the crimes Mr. Epstein has been charged with arc among the most heinous in the \nlaw principally, in the Court's view, because they involve minor girls. IS U.S.C. § 3142 \n(e)(3)(E): see also Roger Przybylski, Chapter 5: Adult Sex Offender Recidivism Sex Offender \nManagement Assessment and Planning Initiative (\"Researchers widely agree that ohsen cd \nrecidivism rates are underestimates of the true reoffense rates of sex offenders. Hidden \noffending presents significant challenges for professionals working in sex offender management \nas it is difficult to know whether offenders who appear to be nonrecidivists based on official \nrecords arc truly offense free.\") (emphasis in original). \n• \nMr. Epstein Or His Representatives Have Intimidated, Threatened, And/Or Made \nPayments To Potential Witnesses \nThe Government's evidence includes: (i) Florida police reports describing harassment \nand intimidation of witnesses involved in the Florida state criminal investigation of Mr. Epstein \nin 2006, and (ii) emails, dated September 13, 2007 and September 19, 2007 (attached hereto), \nfrom Mr. Epstein's former counsel to Federal prosecutors in Florida discussing the \"option\" of \nMr. Epstein pleading guilty to witness tampering, harassment, and/or obstruction of justice. \nA Palm Beach Police Incident Report, dated July 19, 2006, states that one of Mr. \nEpstein's victims reported that Mr. Epstein's representative said to her: \"Those who help [Mr. \nEpstein] will be c\n... [truncated, 2191 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/14 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=14]", "char_count": 2191}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 15, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 16 of 33 \nvictim that] she would receive monetary compensation for her assistance in not cooperating with \nlaw enforcement.\" Id. Another (undated) Palm Beach Police Incident Report states that the \nparent of one of Mr. Epstein's alleged victims contacted the Palm Beach Police to report that Mr. \nEpstein's private investigator had aggressively driven the parent's car off the road. Dkt. 11. Ex. 2 \nat 1. This same Report states that the parent of another victim reported being \"followed \naggressively\" by Mr. Epstein's private investigator. Id. \nThe Government contends that these reports together \"suggest that an ass wiate of \nEpstein's was offering to buy victims' silence during the course of the prior investigation,\" and \ndemonstrate Mr. Epstein's \"willingness to use intimidation and aggressive tactics in connection \nwith a criminal investigation.\" Dkt. I 1 at 11. \nThe Government also submits e-mail evidence (attached to this Order as Exhibit I) of \nplea discussions in 2007 between Florida federal prosecutors and Mr. Epstein's attorneys that \nconfirm that Mr. Epstein considered pleading guilty to witness tampering, harassment and/or \nobstruction of justice in a case involving alleged sex crimes with minor girls. On September 13, \n2007. prosecutors wrote to Mr. Epstein's counsel that they have been \"spending some quality \ntime . . . looking for misdemeanors [that Mr. Epstein could plead guilty to],- including 18 U.S.C. \n§ 1512(d), a Federal witness tampering statute (a felony) and 18 U.S.C. § 403, a Federal statute \ncriminalizing the violation of the privacy protection of child victims and child witnesses (a \nmisdemeanor). Doe v. United States, 08 Civ. 80756, (S.D. Fla.), Dkt. 361-11. Epstein's counsel \nreplied: \"Already thinking about the same statutes.\" Id. On September 18. 2007, a Federal \nprosecutor told Mr. Epstein's counsel that if Mr. Epstein pled guilty to obstruction of justice, the \nfactual proffer \"could \n... [truncated, 2193 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/15 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=15]", "char_count": 2193}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 16, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 17 of 33 \n19, 2007, Mr. Epstein's counsel proposed that Mr. Epstein admit that he verbally harassed \nvictims or the family of victims in connection with his \"attempt to delay their voluntary receipt \nof process\" in a civil action against Mr. Epstein, in violation of a Federal witness tampering \nstatute. Doe, Dkt. 361-9. \nAnd, the Government has recently contended that, on November 28, 2018 and on \nDecember 3, 2018 — very soon after the publication of a 3-part investigative report in the Miami \nHerald (authored by Julie K. Brown) relating to Mr. Epstein's Florida Non-Prosecution \nAgreement, dated September 24, 2007 — Mr. Epstein paid $100,000 to \"a company founded and \nrun by [Individual I],\" and he paid $250,000 to [Individual II]. Dkt. 23 at I. The Government \nstates that Individual I was \"a potential co-conspirator—[] for whom Epstein obtained protection \nin a the NPA.\" Id. Individual I was named and featured prominently in the Miami Herald. ee \nLg„ Julie K. Brown, \"Even From Jail, Sex Abuser Manipulated The System. His Victims Were \nKept in The Dark Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018. \nThe Government states that Individual 11 was also \"a potential co-conspirator—[] for \nwhom Epstein also obtained protection in [] the NPA.\" Dkt. 23 at 2. She is \"one of the \nemployees identified in the Indictment, which alleges that she and two other identified \nemployees facilitated the defendant's trafficking of minors by, among other things, contacting \nvictims and scheduling their sexual encounters with the defendant at his residences in Manhattan \nand Palm Beach, Florida.\" Id. at 2. Individual II was also named and featured prominently in the \nMiami Herald report. \nThe Government states there is good reason to infer that Mr. Epstein was attempting to \n\"influence [these two] individuals who were close to him during the time period charged in this \ncase and who might be witnesses against him at a trial.\" Dkt. 11 at 11. \"Neither of \n... [truncated, 2024 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/16 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=16]", "char_count": 2024}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 17, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 18 of 33 \npayments appears to be recurring or repeating during the approximately five years of bank \nrecords presently available to the Government. This course of action, and in particular its timing, \nsuggests the defendant was attempting to further influence co-conspirators who might provide \ninformation against him in light of the recently re-emerging allegations.\" a \nA court may order detention if there is a serious risk that the defendant will attempt to \nthreaten, injure, or intimidate a prospective witness or juror. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2XB). Even a \nsingle incident of witness tampering has been a \"traditional ground for pretrial detention by the \ncourts.\" LaFontaine 210 F.3d at 132-34 (affirming then-U.S. District Judge Michael B. \nMukasey's denial of bail to a defendant who had met with a prospective witness in an effort to \npersuade the witness to give untruthful testimony and where there was \"no evidence of influence, \nharassment or intimidation\"); see also United States v. Singh, 2012 WL 3260232, at •3 \n(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2012). \n• Mr. Epstein Has Not Always Been Compliant With His Legal Obligations As A \nRegistered Sex Offender \nDefense counsel has contended that Mr. Epstein has been \"scrupulously fulfill[ing] his \nobligations in every jurisdiction in which he was required to register [as a sex offender],\" since \nhis 2008 Florida convictions. Counsel argues that this shows that he \"is no longer a danger to \nanyone and will faithfully obey all conditions of release if ordered.\" Dkt. 6 at 3. \nThe record shows that Mr. Epstein has challenged his sex offender \"level\" in at least one \njurisdiction since 2008 in an effort to minimize his reporting obligations. And, one recent press \naccount states that Epstein is not in compliance in New York State. 5.0 Elizabeth Rosner, Tina \nMoore, Larry Celona, and Bruce Golding, NYPD let convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein skip \nfudge-ordered check-in. New York Post, Ju\n... [truncated, 2063 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/17 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=17]", "char_count": 2063}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 18, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 19 of 33 \n(\"Jeffrey Epstein never once checked in with City cops in eight-plus years since a Manhattan \njudge ordered him to do so every 90 days\"). \nMr. Epstein is a Level III sex offender in New York State which is the highest category \nof risk to reoffend. This designation requires that Mr. Epstein report his presence in New York to \nlaw enforcement authorities every 90 days. As discussed at the July 15, 2019 bail hearing, \ncounsel for Mr. Epstein made an application in New York State Supreme Court in 2011 to \nreduce Epstein's sex offender registration status from Level III to Level I. If granted, this \nreduction would have allowed Mr. Epstein to avoid his reporting obligations. In a Sex Offender \nRegistration Act Hearing on January 11, 2018, held before the Honorable Ruth Pickholz, Mr. \nEpstein's application was (firmly) denied, principally because it had been established by the \nBoard of Examiners of Sex Offenders. ice.  People v. Epstein. Indict. # 30129/2010, (N.Y. Sup. \nCt.), SORA Hearing Transcript, dated Jan. 18, 2011. \nAt the hearing, New York County Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Gaffney joined in \nDefense Counsel's appeal to review and overturn the decision of the Board of Examiners of Sex \nOffenders and achieve a downward modification of Mr. Epstein's sex offender status. Id. at 2-15. \nJudge Pickholz appeared to be stunned by the joint Defense Counsel/District Attorney \napplication, stating: \"I am just a little overwhelmed that the People are making this application.. \n.. I have done many SORAs much less troubling than this one where the People would never \nmake a downward [adjustment) argument like this.. .. I have never seen the prosecutor's office \ndo this. I have to tell you, I am shocked.\" M. at 4-5. Judge Pickholz also ordered Mr. Epstein to \nreport as a Level Ill sex offender every 90 days in New York. a at 12. \"I am sorry [Mr. Epstein] \nmay have to come here every 90 days. He can give \n... [truncated, 2152 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/18 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=18]", "char_count": 2152}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 19, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 20 of 33 \nwas unanimously affirmed, on November 17, 2011, by a panel of five judges of the Appellate \nDivision of the New York State Supreme Court. People v. Epstein, 89 A.D.3d 570, 933 N.Y.S.2d \n239 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). \nNotwithstanding Judge Pickholz's order, according to a July 10, 2019 investigative report \nby the New York Post, as noted. Mr. Epstein has never reported as a sex offender to New York \nlaw enforcement. See July 10, 2019 NY Post Article. \"The NYPD cop assigned to monitor \nEpstein has repeatedly complained to [the New York County District Attorney's] Sex Crimes \nUnit that Epstein wasn't in compliance, according to a source familiar with the matter.\" it  Mr. \nEpstein's alleged failure to comply with his New York sex offender obligations would appear to \nundermine defense counsel's premise that Mr. Epstein's \"perfect compliance\" and \"meticulous \nobedience,\" Dkt. 6 at 1, 5, to his sex offender registration obligations should lead to his release. \nSee LaFontaine 210 F.3d at 135 n.6 (where the Court ordered detention noting that the \ndefendant \"had previously disregarded court orders\"). \nThe Court has also read the story in the July 17. 2019, New York Post in which attorney \nBrad Edwards contends that while Epstein was serving his Florida state sentence (after pleading \nguilty to procuring a minor under 18 for prostitution and solicitation of prostitution), Epstein was \nallowed to leave the jail on work release. While on work release \"[h]e was having ... female \nvisitors ... and continuing to engage in ... [sexual] conduct ... while he was in `jail'.\" Mr. \nEdwards is counsel to one of Mr. Epstein's victims. \nReuven Fenton and Kate Sheehy, Jeffrey \nEpstein had sex den while serving time: lawyer New York Post. July 16, 2019. The Court is also \naware of an article published by Palm Beach CBS local news which reports that the Palm Beach \nCounty Sherriffs Office \"disputes [the] claim that Jeffrey Epstein\n... [truncated, 2143 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/19 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=19]", "char_count": 2143}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 20, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 21 of 33 \nrelease he would have been brought back to the Stockade and work release would have been \nterminated.\" Chuck Weber, PBSO disputes claim that Jeffrey Epstein had sex on work release. \nCBS 12 News, July 17, 2019. \n• \nNew Mexico, Florida And The Virgin Islands \nWith respect to Mr. Epstein's sex offender status in New Mexico, Defense Counsel has \nsubmitted a letter, dated August 19, 2010, from Regina Chaco!), Assistant Bureau Chief, Law \nEnforcement Record Bureau of the New Mexico Department of Public Safety, which states that \nMr. Epstein \"is not required to register [as a sex offender] with the State of New Mexico at this \ntime for [his) 2008 Florida conviction of Procuring [a] Person Under 18 for Prostitution.\" Dkt. \n25, Ex. A. The Court requested from the Defense all application materials that Mr. Epstein may \nhave submitted to the New Mexico Department of Public Safety, believing that the Department \nwould not initiate the waiver of Mr. Epstein's sex offense registration on its own. No such \nmaterials have been received by the Court as of this date. \nThe Court understands that Mr. Epstein is also registered as a sex offender in the Virgin \nIslands (Level I) and in Florida (Level I). It has received no materials from the Defense \nregarding sex offender applications or proceedings in those two jurisdictions. \nIn sum, based upon all of the proffers and evidence set forth at pp. 10-21 above, the Court \nfinds by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Epstein poses a danger to other persons and to \nthe community. \nG. Mr. Epstein Also Poses A Risk Of Flight \nIn the section that follows, the Court considers \"risk of flight\" even though it has already \ndetermined that Mr. Epstein presents a danger to the community. \"[A] finding of either danger \nto the community or risk of flight will be sufficient to detain the defendant pending trial.\" \n21 \nEFTA00081967\n", "char_count": 1945}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 21, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 22 of 33 \nUnited States v. King, 849 F.2d 485, 488 (11th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. Pones 786 \nF.2d 765 (7th Cir. 1985)). The Court finds that the Government has shown by a preponderance \nof the evidence that Mr. Epstein is a flight risk. \nThe factors to be considered in analyzing risk of flight are the same factors that apply \nwhen analyzing dangerousness. They are: (I) the nature and circumstances of the crimes \ncharged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the defendant; (3) the history and characteristics \nof the defendant, including the person's character and financial resources; and (4) \"the \nseriousness of the danger posed by the defendant's release.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). \"The weight \nafforded to each factor under section 3142(g) is within the 'special province' of the district \ncourt.\" paulino 335 F. Supp. at 610. \nAt the outset, it should be noted that the Pretrial Services Report, dated July 12, 2019, \nconcludes that: \"The defendant poses a risk of nonappearance for the following reasons: \n1. [Mr. Epstein's] Extensive foreign travel and possession of travel documents \n2. [Mr. Epstein's] Residential and Financial Tics outside this District and Country \n3. [Mr. Epstein's] Employment ties outside this country \n4. [Mr. Epstein's] Unexplained assets \n5. [Mr. Epstein's] Criminal History including [his] conviction for a [] sex offense [with \nminors in Florida in 2008].\" Pretrial Services Report, dated July 12, 2019 at 4. \n• The Crimes Charged Against Mr. Epstein \nMr. Epstein has been charged with among the most serious crimes recognized by U.S. \nFederal law. The Government has alleged that Mr. Epstein intentionally sought out and sexually \nabused minor girls, including those \"particularly vulnerable to exploitation.\" Dkt. II, Ex. 1, at 2. \nHe did this in multiple locations, including New York and Palm Beach. Id: And, Mr. Epstein \nallegedly \"worked and conspired with others, including employees and\n... [truncated, 2042 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/21 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=21]", "char_count": 2042}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 22, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 23 of 33 \nhis [unlawful] conduct, by . . . contacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters.\" \nIndictment 4; 4. These crimes, as already noted, carry a maximum sentence of 45 years of \nincarceration and give rise to a presumption of pre-trial remand. 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (eX3XE): iSS \nUnited States v. Hardy. 2019 WL 2211210, at •10 (D.D.C. May 22, 2019) (\"'Ilse significant \nharms and dangers of these crimes animated the Congress to create the statutory presumption of \ndetention.\"). The nature and circumstances of the crimes charged and the severity of the potential \npunishment support a finding that Defendant poses \"a serious flight risk and that no conditions \ncan be set to reasonably assure his appearance for trial.\" United States v. Citing, 2013 WL \n3802012, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2013). \n• Weight Of The Evidence \nThe Government's evidence against Mr. Epstein appears strong. The evidence includes \ntestimony of victims, some of whom were minor girls when they were allegedly sexually abused \nby Mr. Epstein; other witnesses, including potential coconspirators; physical evidence, including \npassports reflecting extensive foreign travel; sexually suggestive photographs of nude underage \ngirls; plea discussions; and police reports describing witness tampering and intimidation. See,\ntg, United States v. Fama 2013 WL 2467985, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2013) (\"the Court \nrecognizes the difficulty inherent in assessing the Government's case before trial, and is mindful \nnot to reach any conclusions about [the Defendant's] guilt or innocence. Indeed, some courts \nhave described the weight of the evidence factor as the 'least important of the § 3I42(g) factors \nfor these reasons.\"); see also Hir. 517 F.3d at 1090. \n• \nHistory And Characteristics Of The Defendant Including His Financial Resources \nMr. Epstein pled guilty to two state felonies involving minor girls in Florida. He also \nheld plea discussions regarding \n... [truncated, 2085 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/22 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=22]", "char_count": 2085}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 23, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 24 of 33 \nsex offender in New York and a registered sex offender in Florida (Level I) and the Virgin \nIslands (Level I). Mr. Epstein is 66 and is reported to be a self made multi-millionaire. He did \nnot graduate from college. Mr. Epstein's vast wealth, including substantial liquid assets, multiple \nresidences, private plane(s), a $8,672,823 residence in Paris, France, and relatively limited \nfamily ties to the United States in the sense that he is single with no children and his parents are \ndeceased. He has a brother who Defense counsel asserts has offered to serve as a guarantor for \nMr. Epstein by pledging his home in West Palm Beach, Florida. (The Court notes that the \nPretrial Services Report, dated July 12, 2019, states that \"[Ole defendant stated he maintains \nminimal contact with his brother, Mark Epstein, and that his exact location is unknown at this \ntime.\" Pretrial Services Report at 2.) \nMr. Epstein engages in extensive overseas travel often relying on his own plane(s). The \nGovernment argues persuasively that \"there is an extraordinary risk of flight, particularly given \nthe defendant's exorbitant wealth, his ownership of and access to private planes capable of \ninternational travel, and his significant international ties. Indeed, the arrest of the defendant \noccurred when he arrived in the United States on his private jet after having returned from a \nmulti-week stay abroad.\" Dkt. 11, Ex. 1 at 1. \"[I]n the past 18 months alone, the defendant has \ntraveled abroad, via private jet, either into or out of the country on approximately more than 20 \noccasions.\" \nat 3. \nIn a recent search of Defendant's New York City home, law enforcement seized an \nexpired Austrian passport bearing Mr. Epstein's photo but not his name. (The passport is in \nanother name.) The Austrian passport lists residence in Saudi Arabia. According to the \nGovernment, Defense counsel declined to respond when asked by the Government \n... [truncated, 2025 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/23 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=23]", "char_count": 2025}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 24, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 25 of 33 \n\"Defendant is currently, or has been in the past, a citizen or legal permanent resident of a country \nother than the United States.\" Dkt. 23 at 2. \nDefense counsel contends that Defendant has one active passport that was surrendered \nand that \"Mr. Epstein has no foreign passports.\" Dkt. 6 at 3 n. 3. With regard to the Austrian \npassport, the Defense explains that \"Epstein . . . acquired the passport in the 1980s, when \nhijackings were prevalent, in connection to Middle East travel. The passport was for personal \nprotection in the event of travel to dangerous areas, only to be presented to potential kidnapers, \nhijackers or terrorists should violent episodes occur.\" Dkt. 24 at 8. Details about how the \npassport was procured by Mr. Epstein in the name of another individual were not provided and \nare not known to the Government. acs Dkt. 23 at 2 (\"The Government is attempting to obtain \nadditional information about the Foreign Passport, including how it was obtained and whether \nthe passport is genuine or fabricated. But the defendant's possession of what purports to be a \nforeign passport issued under an alias gives rise to the inference the defendant knows how to \nobtain false travel documents and/or assume other, foreign identities. This adds to the serious \nrisk of flight posed by the defendant.\"). The Government also argues that \"the passport contains \nnumerous ingress and egress stamps, including stamps that reflect use of the passport to enter \nFrance, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Saudi Arabia in the 1980s.\" Dkt. 30. By submission \ndated July 18, 2019, the Defense explains: \"Epstein was given the passport at issue by a friend . . \n. He never used the document to travel internationally and never presented it to any immigration \nor customs authority. I he passport stamps, predating his receipt of the document, do not reflect \nMr. Epstein's entries or exits.\" Dkt. 31. \nDefense counsel has submitted \n... [truncated, 2167 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/24 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=24]", "char_count": 2167}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 25, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 26 of 33 \n$14,304,679; equities valued at $112,679,138; hedge funds and private equity valued at \n$194,986,301; properties located at 9 East 71st Street, NY, NY 10021 valued at $55,931,000, 49 \nZorro Ranch Road, Stanley, New Mexico 87056 valued at $17,246,208, 358 El Brillo Way, Palm \nBeach, Florida 33480 valued at $12,380,209, 22 Avenue Foch, Paris France 75116 valued at \n$8,672,823, Great St. James Island No. 6A USVI 00802 (parcels A, B, and C) valued at \n$22,498,600 and Little St. James Island No. 6B USVI 00802 (parcels A, B, and C). Dkt. 14 at \n18. The Court has advised Defense counsel that this \"cursory\" asset statement is insufficient to \nsupport a bail package for the reasons, among others, that it is not verified and does not show \nexpenses, indebtedness, or liabilities. \nLaw enforcement has informed the Government that a safe in the Defendant's Ncw York \nhome very recently contained \"more than 570.000 in cash ... 48 loose diamond stones, ranging \nin size from approximately 1 carat to 2.38 carats, as well as a large diamond ring. The \nGovernment is currently unaware of whether the Defendant maintains similar amounts] of cash \nand/or jewels at his multiple properties, or in other locations. Such ready cash and loose \ndiamonds arc consistent with the capability to leave the jurisdiction at a moment's notice.\" Dkt. \n23 at 3. \n•\n Defendant's vast wealth and influential contacts have provided him with the means \nto pay individuals to assist him in unlawful endeavors, including potentially fleeing the \njurisdiction. In the past, \"the Defendant worked with others, including employees and associates \nwho facilitated his exploitation of minors, by among other things. contacting victims and \nscheduling their sexual encounters with the defendant, both in New York and in Florida.\" Dkt. \n11, Ex. I at 2. \n26 \nEFTA00081972\n", "char_count": 1903}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 26, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 27 of 33 \nwho, as noted, represents identified victims in this case, advised the Court \nthat while a civil case was proceeding against the Defendant \"we had situations in which we had \nwitnesses who were cooperating with us and then were contacted by either Mr. Epstein or his \nlawyers and who then stopped cooperating with us.\" 7/15/19 Tr. at 71; see also United States v. \nDoustani 356 F.Supp.3d 246 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (\"[T]he combination of Defendant's alleged \ndeceptive actions, access to substantial financial resources, frequent international travel, \ncomplete lack of ties to the United States, and extensive ties to foreign countries without \nextradition demonstrates Defendant poses a serious risk of flight.\" ); United States v. Epstein. \n155 F.Supp.2d 323, 326 (E.D. Penn. 2001 ) (\"The crucial factor, however, is defendant's lack of \ntics to the United States and his extensive tics to Brazil with which no extradition treaty exists. \nIn our view, his forfeiture of Slmillion worth of assets in the United States would not deter him \nfrom flight when in Brazil he has significant wealth, a lucrative job, the presence of his family, \nand insulation from ever being forced to stand trial.\"). \nViewing the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the Government has shown \nby a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant is a serious risk of flight and that no \nconditions can be set that will reasonably assure his appearance at trial. \"While other judges in \nthis district have found that an armed security guard may be sufficient to assure a defendant's \nappearance, even when he is a serious risk of flight ... this Court does not believe that that \ncondition, even coupled with the additional conditions proposed, would be sufficient.\" United \nCilins, 2013 WL 3802012, at •3. \n• \nThe Danger Posed By The Defendant's Release \nAs demonstrated infra. Mr. Epstcin's dangerousness is considerable and includes sex \ncrimes wi\n... [truncated, 2103 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/26 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=26]", "char_count": 2103}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 27, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 28 of 33 \nincorporated here by reference. See Minnici, 128 F. App'x at 829-30 (\"the alleged activities \n[we]re of an addictive sexual nature that cannot be suppressed simply by a restrictive set of bail \nconditions\"); see also Milian, 4 F.3d at 1049 (\"(T]he protection of the community can be assured \nonly by continued detention.\"). \nThe Court has carefully considered the issue of Defendant's ability and motivation for \nfleeing U.S. jurisdiction. The Court finds that the Government has proven by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that, among other things, the Defendant's limited family ties to the United States, \nhis residence in Paris, his extensive overseas travel, his significant wealth and his substantial \nresources (including private planes), and the potential 45 year term of imprisonment that may be \nimposed should there be a conviction in this case, provide incentive, motive and wherewithal to \nflee. Indeed, these factors render him a \"classic\" flight risk. See. e.g. United States v. Abdullahu. \n488 F.Supp.2d 433, 445 (D.N.J. 2007) (\"After reviewing the totality of the evidence, the Court \nhas reached the inescapable conclusion that the government has proved by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that no condition or combination of conditions exist that will reasonably assure the \ndefendant's appearance at trial. The defendant faces serious criminal charges ... The defendant \nfaces a potential ten year prison sentence and involuntary deportation. The defendant does not \nhave permanent and longstanding ties to this area, he has the means and incentive to flee and he \nhas family ties and a place to live in an overseas country that will not extradite him to the United \nStates.\"). \nH. Defendant's Proposed Bail Package \nI laving determined that Mr. Epstein is a flight risk (and also a danger to the community), \nthe Court next examines the Defendant's proposed bail package. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b)-(0(2). \n28 \nEFTA000\n... [truncated, 2006 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/27 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=27]", "char_count": 2006}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 28, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 29 of 33 \nThe Court finds that the Defendant's proposed bail package is inadequate. Among its \ndeficiencies are these: \n(1) The bail package is not accompanied or supported by audited or certified financial \nstatements, including details of income and expenses and debt obligations. There is no affidavit \nfrom Mr. Epstein. As noted, Defense counsel submitted a cursory one page \"Asset Summary - \nJune 30, 2019\" on Mr. Epstein's behalf in which he discloses several categories of assets totaling \n$559,120,954. The Defense states that it \"would be impossible for Epstein — given, among other \nimpediments, his detention, inability to quickly access pertinent records. and inability to quickly \nmake a precise valuation of particular assets — to provide a sufficient financial statement by the \nCourt's 5 pm deadline.\" Dkt. 23 at 4. \nThe absence of accurate and comprehensive financials, sworn to by the Defendant, does \nnot allow the Court meaningfully to assess Defendants' own proposed bail package nor would it \nenable the Court to fashion a bail package on its own. The Court would not be able to determine \nwhat level of bail — in relation to Epstein's finances — would reasonably assure the Defendant's \nappearance. Defense counsel proposed at the bail hearing on July 15, 2019 that it would take a \nfew days to prepare accurate financials for Mr. Epstein. He also suggested that he would do so \n(only) if the Court were agreeable to granting bail. This \"offer\" appears disingenuous for a \nperson as wealthy and experienced in financial matters as Mr. Epstein. kg Tr. 7/15/19 at 50 \n(Court: \"There needs to be a fuller financial picture to know what would be appropriate.\" \nDefense Counsel: \"Let me be blunt. It was our first effort ... .\"). That Mr. Epstein does not have \na financial statement, including liabilities and expenses, readily available is difficult to \nunderstand. \n29 \nEFTA00081975\n", "char_count": 1959}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 29, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 30 of 33 \n(2) The defense bail package proposes excessive involvement of the Court in routine \naspects of Mr. Epstein's proposed home confinement. This is not the Court's function. \nUnited States v. Zarrab, 2016 WI. 3681423, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2016) (\"The [bail \npackage] . . . proposed by the defense is not reasonable because, in too many respects, it \nsubstitutes judicial oversight and management for (more appropriate) reliance upon trained, \nexperienced, and qualified professionals from the U.S. Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Marshals \nService.\"). The Defense package components would embroil the Court in issues, among others, \nrelating to the level of force that may be used to secure the Defendant, who may enter the \nresidence, daily reporting by Mr. Epstein, and reporting by so-called Trustee(s) designated to live \nwith and supervise Mr. Epstein. $fr United States v. Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d 283, 295 (E.D.N.Y. \n2014) (\"The questions about the legal authorization for the private security fum to use force \nagainst defendant should he violate the terms of his release, and the questions over whether the \nguards can or should be aimed, underscore the legal and practical uncertainties - indeed, the \nimperfections - of the private jail-like concept envisioned by defendant, as compared to the more \nsecure option of an actual jail.\"). \n(3) The Defense proposal to give advance consent to extradition and waiver of extradition \nrights is, in the Court's view, an empty gesture. And, it comes into pay only after Mr. Epstein has \nfled the Court's jurisdiction. According to the Government, \"The Department of Justice's Office \nof International Affairs is unaware of any country anywhere in the world that would consider an \nanticipatory extradition waiver binding. And, of course, the defendant could choose to flee to a \njurisdiction with which the United States does not have an extradition treaty.\" Dkt. 11 at 7. \n(4) Altho\n... [truncated, 2190 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/29 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=29]", "char_count": 2190}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 30, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 31 of 33 \nbeen no concrete pledge of any real assets or any concrete proposal to turnover deeds to real \nproperty, or to provide a specific amount of cash. \n7/15/19 Tr. at 50 (\"1 am authorized to say \nto the Court that whatever bond you want Mr. Epstein to sign, whether it's 5100 million or an \namount close to the amount of the assets that we have provided, Mr. Epstein is prepared to sign \nit.\"). \nThe Court, as noted, has no detailed information regarding the extent of the Defendant's \nassets, including the nature, value and location of all of his assets. There is no mention of any \nexpenses. liabilities, or indebtedness. And, there has been no persuasive Defense counter to the \nGovernment's argument that \"even were the defendant to sacrifice literally all of his current \nassets, there is every indication that he would immediately be able to resume making millions or \ntens of millions of dollars per year outside of the United States. He already earns at least \nS10,000,000 per year, according to records from Institution-1, while living in the U.S. Virgin \nIslands. traveling extensively abroad, and residing in part in Paris, France; there would be little to \nstop the defendant from fleeing, transferring his unknown assets abroad, and then continuing to \ndo whatever it is he does to earn his vast wealth from a computer terminal beyond the reach of \nextradition.\" Dkt. 11 at 5 (emphasis omitted). The Defendant, it should also be noted, is already \nat risk of losing some of his real property because the Indictment contains a forfeiture allegation \nregarding any property that was used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the sex \ntrafficking offenses and that includes, but it is not limited to, the property located at 9 East 71st \nStreet, New York, New York. \n(5) The appointment and role of - trustees\" who will presumably live with Mr. Epstein \nand monitor his compliance with bail conditions are unacceptab\n... [truncated, 2142 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00081947/30 or ?id=EFTA00081947&page=30]", "char_count": 2142}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 31, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 32 of 33 \nDefendant and their purported role as independent monitors. (The same problem arises in \nrelation to private 24/7 security guards.) This is especially problematic where, as here, it is \nalleged that employees of the Defendant may have engaged in unlawful acts with and on behalf \nof the Defendant. According to the Government, \"the defendant worked with others, including \nemployees and associates who facilitated his exploitation of minors, by among other things, \ncontacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters with the defendant, both in Ncw York \nand in Florida.\" Dkt. 11, Ex. I at 2. \n(6) \"As a fallback.\" the Defense suggests the utilization of and the funding of a private \nsecurity guard agency to \"virtually guarantee\" Mr. Epstein's presence in court and, presumably. \nalso to supervise his behavior. This contingency plan is not a part of Mr. Epstein's 14 point \nproposal. Nevertheless, the Court is asked by the defense to \"revisit\" its legal viewpoint as \nexpressed in an earlier decision concerning 24/7 private home security guards. \nEach bail package in each case is considered and evaluated on its individual merits by the \nCourt. And, in view of the Court's finding of dangerousness, a new bail proposal likely would be \nfutile. See. e.a. United Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 544 (\"No conceivable conditions could ensure the \nsafety of the community.\"); Orena, 986 F.2d at 632 (\"We do not agree that the bail conditions set \nby the district court eliminate the danger to the community or are superior to detention for \npurposes of the Bail Reform Act.\"); United States v. Colombo, 777 F.2d 96, 100 (2d Cir. 1985) \n(\"These conditions arc clearly inadequate to protect the public from one found for bail purposes \nto be a danger to the community.\"). \n32 \nEFTA00081978\n", "char_count": 1850}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00081947", "page_number": 32, "text_content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 33 of 33 \nConclusion & Order \nBased upon the forgoing, the Government's motion for remand (detention) is granted and \nthe Defense motion for pretrial release is denied. \nDated: New York, New York \nJuly 18, 2019 \nRICHARD M. BERMAN, U.S.D.J. \n33 \nEFTA00081979\n", "char_count": 313}]}