{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "Case 1:20-cr-00338-DAD Document 141392 Filed 06/09/21 Page 2 of 12",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "provided in denying bail, proposing two additional conditions to the ones she proposed in her second motion for bail. Specifically, she offers to renounce her French and British citizenship, and she also proposes to have her and her spouse's assets placed in a new account that will be monitored by a retired federal judge. See Dkt. No. 160 at 2.\n\nAs set forth below, the Court concludes that none of the Defendant's new arguments and proposals disturb its conclusion that the Defendant poses a risk of flight and that there are no combination of conditions that can reasonably assure her appearance. Thus, for substantially the same reasons that the Court denied the Defendant's first and second motions for release, the Court DENIES the Defendant's third motion for release on bail.\n\nI. Background\n\nOn July 14, 2020, this Court held a hearing regarding the Defendant's request for bail.\n\nAfter a thorough consideration of all of the Defendant's arguments and of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court concluded that no conditions or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance, determining as a result that the Defendant was a flight risk and that detention without bail was warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). The Defendant has been incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center since that time.\n\nThe Defendant renewed her motion for release on bail on December 8, 2020. The Court again denied the Defendant's motion. In doing so, the Court explained that none of the Defendant's new arguments materially impacted its conclusion that the Defendant posed a risk of flight. It noted that the charges, which carry a presumption of detention, are serious and carry lengthy terms of imprisonment if convicted; the evidence proffered by the Government, including multiple corroborating and corroborated witnesses, remained strong; the Defendant's substantial resources and foreign ties created considerable uncertainty and opportunities for",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "provided in denying bail, proposing two additional conditions to the ones she proposed in her second motion for bail. Specifically, she offers to renounce her French and British citizenship, and she also proposes to have her and her spouse's assets placed in a new account that will be monitored by a retired federal judge. See Dkt. No. 160 at 2.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As set forth below, the Court concludes that none of the Defendant's new arguments and proposals disturb its conclusion that the Defendant poses a risk of flight and that there are no combination of conditions that can reasonably assure her appearance. Thus, for substantially the same reasons that the Court denied the Defendant's first and second motions for release, the Court DENIES the Defendant's third motion for release on bail.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. Background",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "On July 14, 2020, this Court held a hearing regarding the Defendant's request for bail.\n\nAfter a thorough consideration of all of the Defendant's arguments and of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court concluded that no conditions or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance, determining as a result that the Defendant was a flight risk and that detention without bail was warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). The Defendant has been incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center since that time.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Defendant renewed her motion for release on bail on December 8, 2020. The Court again denied the Defendant's motion. In doing so, the Court explained that none of the Defendant's new arguments materially impacted its conclusion that the Defendant posed a risk of flight. It noted that the charges, which carry a presumption of detention, are serious and carry lengthy terms of imprisonment if convicted; the evidence proffered by the Government, including multiple corroborating and corroborated witnesses, remained strong; the Defendant's substantial resources and foreign ties created considerable uncertainty and opportunities for",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000865",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "July 14, 2020",
      "December 8, 2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00338-DAD",
      "Dkt. No. 160",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00000865"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to a bail hearing. The text is mostly clear, but there may be some minor formatting issues. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}