Document 1:20-cr-00330-AJN

domestically and abroad; (3) her finances are completely opaque, as her memorandum pointedly declines to provide the Court with information about her financial resources; and (4) she appears to be skilled at living in hiding. These are glaring red flags, even before the Court considers the gravity of the charges in this case and the serious penalties the defendant faces if convicted at trial. Instead of attempting to address the risks of releasing a defendant with apparent access to extraordinary financial resources, who has the ability to live beyond the reach of extradition in France, and who has already demonstrated a willingness and ability to live in hiding, the defendant instead proposes a bail package that amounts to little more than an unsecured bond. Among other things, the proposed bail package contemplates the defendant pledging as the sole security a property that is beyond the territory and judicial reach of the United States, and which therefore is of no value as collateral. She proposes six unidentified co-signers, an unknown number of whom even reside in the United States, and none of whose assets are identified. The Court and the Government have no information whatsoever regarding whether these co-signers would be able to pay the proposed $5 million bond should the defendant flee — or if, of equal concern, the co-signers are themselves so wealthy that it would be no financial burden whatsoever to do so. The defendant does not identify what residence she proposes to live at in the Southern District of New York, nor does she identify any meaningful ties to the area. And most importantly, the defendant’s memorandum provides the Court with no information whatsoever about her own finances or her access to the wealth of others, declining to provide the Court the very information that would inform any decision about whether a bond is even meaningful to the defendant — and which the Government submits would reveal the defendant’s financial means to flee and live comfortably abroad for the rest of her life. 2 DOJ-OGR-00000987 --- PAGE BREAK --- 1/4/2021 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document docket#16-1 Filed 01/13/21 Page 2 of 4 Learn More Coronavirus.gov The primary lane of information for the public regarding Coronavirus (COVID-19) is a portal for public information published by the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Task Force at the White House, working in conjunction with CDC, HHS and other agency stakeholders. Go to coronavirus.gov CDC.gov The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has established a resource portal on CDC.gov with the latest information from CDC and the overarching medical community on COVID-19. Go to cdc.gov USA.gov To learn about international travel restrictions, how you can prepare for coronavirus, and what the U.S. government is doing in response to the virus, visit https://www.usa.gov/coronavirus Go to usa.gov/coronavirus COVID-19 Cases Loading data ... https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ 2/4 DOJ-OGR-00002265 --- PAGE BREAK --- 3. In February 2019, the Government, ex parte and under seal, sought modification of those civil protective orders so as to permit compliance with the criminal grand jury subpoenas; 4. In April 2019, one court ("Court-1") permitted the modification and, subsequently, another court ("Court-2") did not; 5. That as a result of the modification of the civil protective order by Court-1, the Recipient turned over to the Government certain materials that had been covered by the protective order; and 6. That the Defendant learned of this information (sealed by other courts) as a result of Rule 16 discovery in this criminal matter. With the exception of identifying the relevant judicial decision makers and specific civil matters, all of the information listed above is available in the public record, including in the letter filed on the public docket by the Government on this issue. See Dkt. No. 46. Although this Court remains in the dark as to why this information will be relevant to those courts, so that those courts can make their own determination, to the extent it would otherwise be prohibited by the protective order in this matter, the Court hereby permits the defendant to provide to the relevant courts under seal the above information, including the information identifying the relevant judicial decision makers and civil matters. In addition, the Government has indicated that "there is no impediment to counsel making sealed applications to Court-1 and Court-2, respectively, to unseal the relevant materials." Dkt. No. 46 at 3 n.5. In her reply, the Defendant asserts that she is amenable to such a solution if the Court agrees with the Government that doing so would not contravene the protective order in this case. To the extent it would otherwise be prohibited by the protective order in this case. 4 DOJ-OGR-00019261 --- PAGE BREAK --- evidence and witness testimony, will conclusively establish that the defendant groomed the victims for sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein.1 The defendant's motion alludes to defenses in this case, all of which are legal or procedural in nature, and none of which pass muster, let alone counsel in favor of bail. To begin with, the notion that the defendant is protected from prosecution by the Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida (“SDFL”) is absurd. That agreement affords her no protection in this District, for at least three reasons. First, the defendant was not a party to that agreement nor named in it as a third-party beneficiary, and the defendant offers no basis to think she would have standing to claim any rights under the NPA. Tellingly, the defendant cites no authority for the proposition that an agreement she was not a party to and that does not even identify her by name could possibly be invoked to bar her prosecution. Second, and equally important, the NPA does not bind the Southern District of New York, which was not a party to the agreement. See United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (“A plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.”); United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010). This rule applies even when the text of the agreement refers to the signing party as the “Government.” Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. Third, and perhaps most important, even assuming the NPA could be read to protect this defendant and bind this Office, which are both legally unsound propositions, the Indictment 1 Additionally, and beyond the strong evidence set forth in the Indictment, in just the past week, and in response to the charges against the defendant being made public, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and the U.S. Attorney's Office have been in touch with additional individuals who have expressed a willingness to provide information regarding the defendant. The Government is in the process of receiving and reviewing this additional evidence, which has the potential to make the Government's case even stronger. --- PAGE BREAK --- earnestness to abide by the conditions of her release and underscores that she has no intention to flee and reflects her deep need to communicate freely with counsel to prepare for her defense. Her renunciation of foreign citizenship obviates the Court's concerns about the validity of waivers of extradition. (See Dkt. 106 at 13). Ms. Maxwell will have no ability to contest extradition from France or the United Kingdom on the basis of citizenship, which removes any incentive the Court and government believe she may have to seek refuge in those countries. B. Restraint and Monitoring of Assets In denying bail, the Court noted that the bond was not fully secured, and that Ms. Maxwell and her spouse would still have several million dollars in unrestrained assets that could be used to facilitate her flight from the country. (See id. at 17-18). To assuage any concerns that those assets would be available to finance flight to and shelter in a foreign country, Ms. Maxwell has taken steps to create a monitorship that will place meaningful restraints on the assets that are not used to secure the bond, while still allowing Ms. Maxwell to pay for her legal defense, for her spouse to pay for daily living expenditures and for payment of taxes. 1. New Account All assets of Ms. Maxwell and her spouse, with the exception of money currently held in escrow for legal fees and related defense expenses and the funds contained in the bank account in the name of Ms. Maxwell's spouse ("the Personal Account")1, will be deposited in a newly created account ("the New Account") to be overseen by an asset monitor appointed pursuant to order of the Court. The New Account will contain all of Ms. Maxwell's and her spouse's remaining cash and other liquid assets, including any proceeds that result from the pending sale 1 The Personal Account is identified as Account I on page 9 of the Financial Report annexed to Ms. Maxwell's Renewed Bail Application. (See Dkt. 97, Exhibit O.) 5 DOJ-OGR-00001237 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 20 Filed 06/12/20 Page 8 of 9 make purchases for the property using the credit card. As these facts make plain, there should be no question that the defendant is skilled at living in hiding. The defendant asks the Court to ignore many of the obvious indicators of a flight risk by arguing that she has lived in hiding because of unwanted press attention. This argument entirely misses the point. First, the defendant's conduct is clearly relevant to the Court's assessment of her risk of flight, because it evidences her readiness and ability to live in hiding, and to do so indefinitely. As such, even if her behavior in the last year could be attributed solely to her desire to avoid media attention, that should give the Court serious concerns about what steps she would be willing to take to avoid federal prison. Second, the fact that the defendant took these measures to conceal herself after Epstein was indicted in this District – and after the Government announced that its investigation into Epstein's co-conspirators was ongoing – cannot be ignored. To the contrary, these measures are at least equally consistent with the notion that the defendant also sought to evade detection by law enforcement. In attempting to sidestep the evidence of her ability and willingness to hide, the defendant points to her decision to remain in the United States for the past year while the Government's investigation remained ongoing. She claims that because she did not flee the country during an ongoing investigation, she will not do so while under indictment. This argument ignores the world of difference between believing that an investigation is ongoing and being indicted in six counts by a federal grand jury. The defendant now faces the reality of serious charges, supported by significant evidence, and the real prospect of spending many years in prison. The return of the indictment fundamentally alters the defendant's incentives and heightens the incentive to flee far beyond the theoretical possibility of a charge during an investigation (one the defendant may have wrongly believed would or could not reach her). That is especially so when the defendant has DOJ-OGR-00000993 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 1 Filed 06/29/20 Page 18 of 18 Form No. USA-33s-274 (Ed. 9-25-58) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. INDICTMENT (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1623, 2422, 2423(a), and 2) AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney Foreperson 18 DOJ-OGR-00001484