{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "28",
    "document_number": "100",
    "date": "12/18/20",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 100 Filed 12/18/20 Page 28 of 36\n\nSetting aside whether the defendant's spouse has additional assets beyond those included in the financial report, the vast majority of the assets contained in the report itself apparently originated with the defendant. (See Def. Ex. O at 10). Based on the report, it seems clear that the defendant slowly funneled the majority of her wealth to trusts and into her husband's name over the last five years. As a result, if the Court were to grant the defendant's proposed bail package and the defendant were to flee, her spouse would primarily lose the money that the defendant gave him rather than his own independent assets. In other words, were the defendant to flee, she would largely be sacrificing her own money and assets, thereby limiting the moral suasion of her spouse co-signing the bond. In sum, the defendant's submission does not change the Government's position at the original bail hearing that the defendant has considerable financial resources, and could live a comfortable life as a fugitive.\n\nThe combination of all these factors, including the defendant's foreign ties, demonstrated ability to live in hiding, and financial resources, confirm that the defendant's characteristics continue to weigh in favor of detention. Given the multiplicity of factors supporting detention, this is not one of the rare cases in which a private security company could conceivably be considered as a bail condition. See United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79, 82 (2d Cir. 2019). The Second Circuit has squarely held that \"the Bail Reform Act does not permit a two-tiered bail system in which defendants of lesser means are detained pending trial while wealthy defendants are released to self-funded private jails,\" and that \"a defendant may be released on such a condition\n\nThe Court need not resolve this question, however, because regardless of whether the defendant's husband may have additional undisclosed assets, as discussed herein, the key takeaway from the financial report is that the vast majority of the spouse's reported assets, upon which the proposed bond is based, originated with the defendant, meaning he would not be losing his own money if the defendant fled.\n\n25\nDOJ-OGR-00002189",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 100 Filed 12/18/20 Page 28 of 36",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Setting aside whether the defendant's spouse has additional assets beyond those included in the financial report, the vast majority of the assets contained in the report itself apparently originated with the defendant. (See Def. Ex. O at 10). Based on the report, it seems clear that the defendant slowly funneled the majority of her wealth to trusts and into her husband's name over the last five years. As a result, if the Court were to grant the defendant's proposed bail package and the defendant were to flee, her spouse would primarily lose the money that the defendant gave him rather than his own independent assets. In other words, were the defendant to flee, she would largely be sacrificing her own money and assets, thereby limiting the moral suasion of her spouse co-signing the bond. In sum, the defendant's submission does not change the Government's position at the original bail hearing that the defendant has considerable financial resources, and could live a comfortable life as a fugitive.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The combination of all these factors, including the defendant's foreign ties, demonstrated ability to live in hiding, and financial resources, confirm that the defendant's characteristics continue to weigh in favor of detention. Given the multiplicity of factors supporting detention, this is not one of the rare cases in which a private security company could conceivably be considered as a bail condition. See United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79, 82 (2d Cir. 2019). The Second Circuit has squarely held that \"the Bail Reform Act does not permit a two-tiered bail system in which defendants of lesser means are detained pending trial while wealthy defendants are released to self-funded private jails,\" and that \"a defendant may be released on such a condition",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court need not resolve this question, however, because regardless of whether the defendant's husband may have additional undisclosed assets, as discussed herein, the key takeaway from the financial report is that the vast majority of the spouse's reported assets, upon which the proposed bond is based, originated with the defendant, meaning he would not be losing his own money if the defendant fled.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "25",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002189",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "defendant",
      "defendant's spouse",
      "defendant's husband"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "12/18/20"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 100",
      "932 F.3d 79",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002189"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a bail hearing. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 28 of 36."
}