DOJ-OGR-00000446.jpg

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 24 Filed 07/16/19 Page 2of9 Hon. Richard M. Berman July 16, 2019 Page 2 wealth creates an irrebuttable presumption whereby no condition(s) can reasonably assure personal appearance or protect the public. The Court should reject the government’s misguided effort to effectively create a per se rule.2 Indeed, for the government, there’s literally nothing a person of Epstein’s means could say, do or pledge to rebut the operative presumption and make himself eligible for release. massages for money. See Fierro v. Taylor, No. 11-CV8573, 2012 WL 13042630, at *3 (SDNY July 2, 2012) (holding that purchasers of sex from minors fall outside § 1591’s ambit). 2 H.g., 7/15/19 Tr. 11 (“even if the defense were able at some point to rebut the presumption by providing some more information, there simply is no way that they can meet the standard here”); 7/12/19 Ltr. 5 (“even assuming the defendant’s assets are presently in the United States, nothing ... would prevent the defendant from transferring liquid assets out of the country quickly and in anticipation of flight or relocation. The defendant is an incredibly sophisticated financial actor with decades of experience in the industry and significant ties to financial institutions and actors around the world. He could easily transfer funds and holdings on a moment’s [notice] to places where the [g]overnment would never find them so as to ensure he could live comfortably while a fugitive.”); id. (“even were the defendant to sacrifice literally all of his current assets, there is every indication that he would immediately be able to resume making ... tens of millions of dollars per year outside of the United States.... [T]here would be little to stop the defendant from fleeing, transferring his unknown assets abroad, and then continuing to ... earn his vast wealth from a computer terminal beyond the reach of extradition.”) (footnote omitted); id. 7 (“the notion that any individual co-signer could meaningfully secure a bond for this defendant strains credulity’). DOJ-OGR-00000446