← Back to home

Document 20-cr-00304-AJN

AI Analysis

Summary: The Court denies the Defendant's third motion for bail, concluding that the proposed conditions, including renouncing French and British citizenship and having assets monitored by a retired federal judge, are insufficient to mitigate the risk of flight. The Court questions the validity and practical impact of the citizenship renunciations, citing dueling opinions on French law. Pretrial detention is deemed warranted due to the Defendant's significant risk of flight.
Significance: This document is potentially important because it reveals the Court's reasoning for denying the Defendant's third motion for bail, and highlights the complexities of international law and citizenship renunciation.
Key Topics: Bail conditions Risk of flight Pretrial detention
Key People:
  • The Defendant - The individual whose bail is being contested
  • The Government - The prosecuting entity opposing the Defendant's bail
  • The head of the International Criminal Assistance Bureau of the French Ministry of Justice - Providing expert opinion on French law regarding citizenship renunciation
Document Type
Court Filing
Date
Unknown
Pages
1
Folder
IMAGES007

Full Text

that the Defendant poses a significant risk of flight. Thus, the Court again concludes that there are no conditions of release that will reasonably assure her appearance in future proceedings. B. Pretrial detention continues to be warranted The thrust of the Defendant's argument in her third motion for bail is that the two new proposed conditions vitiate the Court's concerns regarding the risk of flight. The Defendant first offers to renounce her French and British citizenship. Def. Mot. at 2. And she also proposes to have most of her and her spouse's assets placed in a new account that will be monitored by a retired federal judge, who would function as an asset monitor and will have co-signing authority over the account. Id. Those conditions are offered in addition to the bail package she proposed in December. See Dec. Op. at 16-17; see also Def. Mot. at 2. The new bail package does not disturb the Court's conclusion that the Government has carried its burden of showing that these conditions are insufficient to mitigate the flight risks, and the Court again determines that no set of conditions—including the two new ones—can reasonably assure her future appearance. The Court begins with the Defendant's offer to renounce her French and United Kingdom citizenship. She notes that she can renounce her UK citizenship "immediately upon granting of bail," and she informs the Court that "[t]he process of renouncing her French citizenship, while not immediate, may be expedited." Def. Mot. at 4. As the Government notes, the offer is of unclear validity, and the relevance and practical impact of the renunciations is, at best, unclear. See Gov't Opp'n at 5. With respect to her offer to renounce her French citizenship, the Court is again confronted with dueling opinions on the correct interpretation of French law. The Government relies on the position of the head of the International Criminal Assistance Bureau of the French Ministry of Justice, who argues that "the fact that the wanted individual is a French national constitutes an insuperable obstacle to his/her removal," and that "[a]s long as said