DOJ-OGR-00000286.jpg

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 13 of 16 “bail statute does not . . . require that foreign defendants be detained simply because their return cannot be guaranteed through extradition”); United States v. Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2004) (ordering release of defendant, an Israeli national who had resided in South Africa for the 18 years preceding his arrest when he landed in Colorado for a family ski trip based on allegations he violated the Export Administration Act and the International Economic Emergency Powers Act by acquiring products capable of triggering nuclear weapons and exported them to Pakistan, despite defendant’s lack of any ties to the United States, despite finding that defendant had “no ties to the United States or the Washington, D.C. area,” despite finding that “no evidence [was] presented establishing that Defendant has ever lived in this country, owned property here, or that he has any family or community ties in the United States,” despite finding that defendant “was only in this country in order to participate in a ski vacation with his wife and daughter,” and despite finding that “the weight of the evidence against Defendant is substantial”); United States v. Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D.D.C. 2009) (ordering release of defendant, a naturalized citizen of the United States, despite finding defendant “has strong ties to [her home country of] China,” finding that the defendant owned property in China, that the defendant spent almost all of her ten years of marriage living abroad with her husband, that during 2008 the defendant spent only 22 days in the United States, that the charges against the defendant (violations of International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Export Administration Regulations) “were serious and carried a potential for a significant period of incarceration” and that the “government has strong evidence against” the defendant “including her own statement to investigators that she smuggled the UAV autopilot components out of the United States and knew there were licensing requirements for such items”). The fact that the government will potentially seek a significant sentence if Mr. Epstein is convicted on all counts similarly does not preclude pretrial release in this case — several courts have ordered pretrial release despite finding that the defendant faced serious charges carrying significant potential sentences. See, e.g., Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63 (reversing district court order of detention despite finding that defendants, natives of Indonesia, faced “lengthy term of incarceration” and “strong” evidence of guilt existed); Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129 (ordering release of defendant, an Israeli national who had resided in South Africa for the 18 years preceding his arrest, despite finding that “the weight of the evidence against Defendant is substantial”); Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d 85 (noting that charges “were serious and carried a potential for a significant period of incarceration” and that the “government has strong evidence against” the defendant “including her own statement to investigators that she smuggled the UAV autopilot components out of the United States and knew there were licensing requirements for such items”). As the government concedes, the increases in sentencing exposure enacted after 13 DOJ-OGR-00000286