DOJ-OGR-00000350.jpg

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Documentii-1 Filed 07/12/19 Page8of10 Honorable Henry Pitman United States Magistrate Judge July 8, 2019 Page 8 merely reduce his head start should he decide to flee. See United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant’s application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring “at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant’s head start”); see also United States v. Casteneda, No. 18 Cr. 047, 2018 WL 888744, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2018) (same); United States v. Anderson, 384 F.Supp.2d 32, 41 (D.D.C. 2005) (same); United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099, 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). Finally, there can be little doubt that the defendant is in a position to abandon millions of dollars in cash and property securing any potential bond and still live comfortably for the rest of his life. These resources, and the ease with which the defendant could flee and live outside the reach of law enforcement—particularly considering his vast wealth and lack of meaningful ties to this District—make the risk of flight exceptionally high in this case, particularly when considered in conjunction with the strength of the government’s case and the lengthy sentence the defendant could receive if convicted. B. The Defendant Poses a Risk of Danger to the Community and of Engaging in Obstruction of Justice The release of the defendant, under any conditions, would pose a significant threat to the community and to the ongoing investigation. As described above, where there is probable cause to believe that an individual has committed an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, it is presumed that no condition or combination of conditions can reasonably assure the safety of the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3). Here, not only is the defendant charged with very serious sex crimes against minors, he has already previously admitted to—and been convicted of—engaging in related conduct. Specifically, in June 2008, the defendant pled guilty in state court to one count of procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution, a felony, and he currently is a registered sex offender, under classification level three in New York—defined as presenting a “high” risk of committing another sex crime and harm to the community. While the conduct presently alleged does not post-date the 2008 conviction, it nevertheless underscores the risk he poses to the community if released. Additionally, and in connection with the investigation of the defendant’s offense in Florida, there were credible allegations that the defendant engaged in witness tampering, harassment, or other obstructive behaviors. In fact, according to publicly-filed court documents, there were discussions between prosecutors and the defendant’s then-counsel about the possibility of the defendant pleading guilty to counts relating to “obstruction,” as well as “harassment,” with reference to 18 U.S.C. § 1512, which criminalizes “[t]ampering with a witness, victim, or informant.” For example, in a communication from the defendant’s then-counsel to prosecutors in SDFL, his counsel set forth a possible factual proffer that included statements that the defendant had “attempted to harass both [redacted] delay and hinder their receipt of a [redacted] to attend an official proceeding” and that the defendant “in particular, changed travel plans and flew with both [redacted] to the United States Virgin Islands rather than to an airport in New Jersey in order to attempt to delay their receipt of what Mr. Epstein expected to be a [redacted]” and “further verbally DOJ-OGR-00000350