EFTA00093116¶
Case 21-770, Document 17-2, 04/01/2021, 3068296, Page43 of 351¶
Exhibit C¶
Doc. 22¶
The Government’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Detention¶
EFTA00093117¶
Case 1.2b-7700330uAUnit Document 01/22/2022 File 068296/20ageedge1_3519¶
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK¶
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA¶
20 Cr. 330 (AJN)¶
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,¶
Defendant. :¶
THE GOVERNMENT’S REPLY MEMORANDUM¶
IN SUPPORT OF DETENTION¶
Acting United States Attorney¶
Southern District of New York¶
Attorney for the United States of America¶
Assistant United States Attorneys¶
- Of Counsel -
EFTA00093118¶
Case 1.20-77-00300uAwt Document 12202File 20682962agealgeo13519¶
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK¶
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA¶
THE GOVERNMENT’S REPLY MEMORANDUM¶
IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DETENTION¶
The Government respectfully submits this reply memorandum in further support of its motion for detention, dated July 2, 2020 (the “Detention Memorandum”) (Dkt. 4), and in response to the defendant’s memorandum in opposition (the “Opposition Memorandum”) (Dkt. 18).¶
The charges against Ghislaine Maxwell arise from her essential role in sexual exploitation that caused deep and lasting harm to vulnerable victims. At the heart of this case are brave women who are victims of serious crimes that demand justice. The defendant’s motion wholly fails to appreciate the driving force behind this case: the defendant’s victims were sexually abused as minors as a direct result of Ghislaine Maxwell’s actions, and they have carried the trauma from these events for their entire adult lives. They deserve to see her brought to justice at a trial.¶
There will be no trial for the victims if the defendant is afforded the opportunity to flee the jurisdiction, and there is every reason to think that is exactly what she will do if she is released. For the reasons detailed in the Detention Memorandum, and as further discussed below, the defendant poses a clear risk of flight, and no conditions of bail could reasonably assure her continued appearance in this case. Among other concerns: (1) she is a citizen of a country that does not extradite its own citizens; (2) she appears to have access to considerable wealth¶
1¶
EFTA00093119¶
Case 120-c700300unit Document 12202File 0682962Bageged03519¶
domestically and abroad; (3) her finances are completely opaque, as her memorandum pointedly declines to provide the Court with information about her financial resources; and (4) she appears to be skilled at living in hiding. These are glaring red flags, even before the Court considers the gravity of the charges in this case and the serious penalties the defendant faces if convicted at trial.¶
Instead of attempting to address the risks of releasing a defendant with apparent access to extraordinary financial resources, who has the ability to live beyond the reach of extradition in France, and who has already demonstrated a willingness and ability to live in hiding, the defendant instead proposes a bail package that amounts to little more than an unsecured bond. Among other things, the proposed bail package contemplates the defendant pledging as the sole security a property that is beyond the territory and judicial reach of the United States, and which therefore is of no value as collateral. She proposes six unidentified co-signers, an unknown number of whom even reside in the United States, and none of whose assets are identified. The Court and the Government have no information whatsoever regarding whether these co-signers would be able to pay the proposed $5 million bond should the defendant flee – or if, of equal concern, the co-signers are themselves so wealthy that it would be no financial burden whatsoever to do so. The defendant does not identify what residence she proposes to live at in the Southern District of New York, nor does she identify any meaningful ties to the area. And most importantly, the defendant’s memorandum provides the Court with no information whatsoever about her own finances or her access to the wealth of others, declining to provide the Court the very information that would inform any decision about whether a bond is even meaningful to the defendant – and which the Government submits would reveal the defendant’s financial means to flee and live comfortably abroad for the rest of her life.¶
2¶
EFTA00093120¶
Case 120-7700330uAudit Document 12202File 0682196/26age43519¶
Finally, the Government recognizes that the COVID-19 pandemic is – and should be – a relevant factor for the Court and the parties in this case. However, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is taking very significant steps to address that concern, and the defendant has offered no reason why she should be treated any differently from the many defendants who are currently detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”) pending trial, including defendants who have medical conditions that place them at heightened risk. Inmates at the MDC are able to assist in their own defense, especially long before trial, through established policies and procedures applicable to every pretrial detainee. This defendant should not be granted the special treatment she requests.¶
The defendant faces a presumption of detention, she has significant assets and foreign ties, she has demonstrated her ability to evade detection, and the victims of the defendant’s crimes seek her detention. Because there is no set of conditions short of incarceration that can reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance, the Government urges the Court to detain her.¶
ARGUMENT¶
Each of the relevant factors to be considered as to flight risk – the nature and circumstances of the offense, the strength of the evidence, and the history and characteristics of the defendant – weigh strongly in favor of detention, and the defendant’s proposed package would do absolutely nothing to mitigate those risks.¶
I. The Defendant’s Victims Seek Detention¶
As the Court is aware, pursuant to the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”), a crime victim has the right to be reasonably heard at certain public proceedings in the district court, including proceedings involving release. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4). Consistent with that requirement, the Government has been in contact with victims and their counsel in connection with its application for detention. Counsel for one victim has already conveyed to the Government that¶
3¶
EFTA00093121¶
Case 120-7700330uAudit D02u0re0t12202File068206/2bage0e053519¶
their client opposes bail for the defendant, and has asked the Government to convey that view to the Court. The Government also expects that one or more victims will exercise their right to be heard at the July 14, 2020 hearing in this matter, and will urge the Court not to grant bail. More generally, as noted above, the Government is deeply concerned that if the defendant is bailed, the victims will be denied justice in this case. That outcome is unacceptable to both the victims and the Government.¶
II. The Government’s Case Is Strong¶
The defendant’s motion argues, in a conclusory fashion, that the Government’s case must be weak because the conduct charged occurred in the 1990s. That argument, which ignores the many specific allegations in the Indictment, could not be more wrong. As the superseding indictment (the “Indictment”) makes plain, multiple victims have provided detailed, credible evidence of the defendant’s criminal conduct. And while that conduct did take place a number of years ago, it is unsurprising that the victims have been unable to forget the defendant’s predatory conduct after all this time, as traumatic childhood experiences often leave indelible marks. The recollections of the victims bear striking resemblances that corroborate each other and provide compelling proof of the defendant’s active participation in a disturbing scheme to groom and sexually abuse minor girls. In addition to compelling victim accounts, as the Government has explained, the victims’ accounts are corroborated by documentary evidence and other witnesses.¶
In particular, the victims’ accounts are supported by contemporaneous documents and records, such as flight records, diary entries, and business records. The powerful testimony of these victims, who had strikingly similar experiences with Maxwell, together with documentary¶
4¶