Case: 20-0770080 Document: 1-202 Filed: 03/23/21 Page: d21 of 518
EXHIBIT A
DOJ-OGR-00001266
@epsteinpedia
CA:
AEb4NmMJF2x5kcp19M13RiXZuAGyajWSKLaioqBrpump
Document 20-0770080
AI Analysis
Summary: The Court remains unconvinced that the Defendant's proposed conditions, including renunciation of citizenship and oversight of financial affairs, sufficiently mitigate the risk of flight. The Court is concerned that the Defendant could still resist or delay extradition, incentivizing her to flee.
Significance: This document is potentially important because it reveals the Court's reasoning in assessing the Defendant's risk of flight and the effectiveness of proposed conditions to mitigate that risk.
Key Topics:
extradition waiver
renunciation of citizenship
risk of flight
Key People:
- the Defendant - the individual whose risk of flight is being assessed by the Court
Full Text
Case: 20-0770080 Document: 1-202 Filed: 03/23/21 Page: d21 of 518
EXHIBIT A
DOJ-OGR-00001266
--- PAGE BREAK ---
parallel those that the Court articulated when the Defendant proposed signing an extradition waiver. See Dec. Op. at 12â13.
Similar doubts exist as to the Defendantâs offer to renounce her UK citizenship. The Court is persuaded by the Governmentâs arguments that even if the Defendant were to renounce her UK citizenship, she would still likely be able to delay or resist extradition from the UK. See Govât Oppân at 6â7. And for largely similar reasons, the Court again concludes that the proposed conditions do not meaningfully diminish the Courtâs concerns regarding the Defendantâs ability to flee and to frustrate or impair any subsequent extradition attempts. The possibility that the Defendant could successfully resist or forestall extradition heightens the Defendantâs incentive to flee.
To summarize, the Defendantâs willingness to renounce her French and UK citizenship does not sufficiently assuage the Courtâs concerns regarding the risk of flight that the Defendant poses. Considerable uncertainty regarding the enforceability and practical impact of the renunciations cloud whatever relevance they might otherwise have to the Courtâs assessment of whether the Defendant poses a risk of flight. See United States v. Cohen, No. C 10-00547 (SI), 2010 WL 5387757, at *9 n.11 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010). And that same uncertaintyâand the possibility that she will be able to successfully resist, or at least delay, extraditionâincentivizes flight, particularly because of the Defendantâs substantial international ties.
Nor does the second proposed condition materially alter the Courtâs determination that no condition or combination of conditions can reasonably assure the Defendantâs appearance. The Defendant proposes to have a retired federal judge provide oversight authority over her financial affairs, and, if granted, he would have the authority to restrain, monitor, and approve disbursement of assets requiring his signature. See Reply at 5. The Court continues to have
10
DOJ-OGR-00001283
Individual Pages
Page d21 - DOJ-OGR-00001266
Page 10 - DOJ-OGR-00001283
parallel those that the Court articulated when the Defendant proposed signing an extradition waiver. See Dec. Op. at 12â13.
Similar doubts exist as to the Defendantâs offer to renounce her UK citizenship. The Court is persuaded by the Governmentâs arguments that even if the Defendant were to renounce her UK citizenship, she would still likely be able to delay or resist extradition from the UK. See Govât Oppân at 6â7. And for largely similar reasons, the Court again concludes that the proposed conditions do not meaningfully diminish the Courtâs concerns regarding the Defendantâs ability to flee and to frustrate or impair any subsequent extradition attempts. The possibility that the Defendant could successfully resist or forestall extradition heightens the Defendantâs incentive to flee.
To summarize, the Defendantâs willingness to renounce her French and UK citizenship does not sufficiently assuage the Courtâs concerns regarding the risk of flight that the Defendant poses. Considerable uncertainty regarding the enforceability and practical impact of the renunciations cloud whatever relevance they might otherwise have to the Courtâs assessment of whether the Defendant poses a risk of flight. See United States v. Cohen, No. C 10-00547 (SI), 2010 WL 5387757, at *9 n.11 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010). And that same uncertaintyâand the possibility that she will be able to successfully resist, or at least delay, extraditionâincentivizes flight, particularly because of the Defendantâs substantial international ties.
Nor does the second proposed condition materially alter the Courtâs determination that no condition or combination of conditions can reasonably assure the Defendantâs appearance. The Defendant proposes to have a retired federal judge provide oversight authority over her financial affairs, and, if granted, he would have the authority to restrain, monitor, and approve disbursement of assets requiring his signature. See Reply at 5. The Court continues to have
10
DOJ-OGR-00001283