{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "29",
    "document_number": "2017-00330",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "only where, but for his wealth, he would not have been detained.” Id. Here, detention is warranted not only because of the defendant’s financial means, but also her foreign ties, her skill at and willingness to live in hiding, the nature of the offense resulting in a presumption of detention, and the strength of the evidence, among other factors. The defense suggestion that the defendant’s private security guards should post cash in support of a bond does not change this calculus. There is no reason to believe that the defendant would be at all troubled by a security company in which she has no personal stake losing $1 million, especially if that sacrifice meant she could escape conviction and sentencing. Accordingly, release to the equivalent of a “privately funded jail” is not warranted here. Id. at 83.\n\nRelatedly, as the Court previously recognized (Tr. 87-88), a GPS monitoring bracelet offers little value for a defendant who poses such a significant flight risk because it is does nothing to prevent the defendant’s flight once it has been removed. At best, home confinement and electronic monitoring would reduce a defendant’s head start after cutting the bracelet. See United States v. Banki, 10 Cr. 008 (JFK), Dkt. 7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2010) (denying bail to a naturalized citizen who was native to Iran, who was single and childless and who faced a statutory maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment, and noting that electronic monitoring is “hardly foolproof.”), aff’d, 369 F. App’x 152 (2d Cir. 2010); United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773 (JG), 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (rejecting defendant’s application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring “at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant’s head start”); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099 (JG), 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). Simply put, no bail conditions, including those proposed in the Renewed Bail Motion, would be sufficient to ensure that this defendant appears in court.",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "only where, but for his wealth, he would not have been detained.” Id. Here, detention is warranted not only because of the defendant’s financial means, but also her foreign ties, her skill at and willingness to live in hiding, the nature of the offense resulting in a presumption of detention, and the strength of the evidence, among other factors. The defense suggestion that the defendant’s private security guards should post cash in support of a bond does not change this calculus. There is no reason to believe that the defendant would be at all troubled by a security company in which she has no personal stake losing $1 million, especially if that sacrifice meant she could escape conviction and sentencing. Accordingly, release to the equivalent of a “privately funded jail” is not warranted here. Id. at 83.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Relatedly, as the Court previously recognized (Tr. 87-88), a GPS monitoring bracelet offers little value for a defendant who poses such a significant flight risk because it is does nothing to prevent the defendant’s flight once it has been removed. At best, home confinement and electronic monitoring would reduce a defendant’s head start after cutting the bracelet. See United States v. Banki, 10 Cr. 008 (JFK), Dkt. 7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2010) (denying bail to a naturalized citizen who was native to Iran, who was single and childless and who faced a statutory maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment, and noting that electronic monitoring is “hardly foolproof.”), aff’d, 369 F. App’x 152 (2d Cir. 2010); United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773 (JG), 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (rejecting defendant’s application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring “at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant’s head start”); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099 (JG), 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). Simply put, no bail conditions, including those proposed in the Renewed Bail Motion, would be sufficient to ensure that this defendant appears in court.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "26",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001171",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Iran",
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "E.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "Jan. 21, 2010",
      "Aug. 4, 2000",
      "Oct. 10, 2002"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "2017-00330",
      "10 Cr. 008",
      "00 Cr. 773",
      "02 Cr. 099",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001171"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a bail motion. The text discusses the defendant's flight risk and the ineffectiveness of certain bail conditions. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}