Epstein Secrets

in the context of his brother's own net worth!' Similarly, the defendant provides no details regarding the "investment interests" of his friend Mr. Mitchell, nor any reason to believe the loss of those "interests" would be meaningful to Mr. Mitchell, let alone the defendant. More generally, given the def

efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma

in the context of his brother's own net worth!' Similarly, the defendant provides no details regarding the "investment interests" of his friend Mr. Mitchell, nor any reason to believe the loss of those "interests" would be meaningful to Mr. Mitchell, let alone the defendant. More generally, given the def

efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma

in the context of his brother's own net worth.6 Similarly, the defendant provides no details regarding the "investment interests" of his friend Mr. Mitchell, nor any reason to believe the loss of those "interests" would be meaningful to Mr. Mitchell, let alone the defendant. More generally, given the def

efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma

in the context of his brother's own net worth!' Similarly, the defendant provides no details regarding the "investment interests" of his friend Mr. Mitchell, nor any reason to believe the loss of those "interests" would be meaningful to Mr. Mitchell, let alone the defendant. More generally, given the def

efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma

in the context of his brother's own net worth!' Similarly, the defendant provides no details regarding the "investment interests" of his friend Mr. Mitchell, nor any reason to believe the loss of those "interests" would be meaningful to Mr. Mitchell, let alone the defendant. More generally, given the def

efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma

in the context of his brother's own net worth!' Similarly, the defendant provides no details regarding the "investment interests" of his friend Mr. Mitchell, nor any reason to believe the loss of those "interests" would be meaningful to Mr. Mitchell, let alone the defendant. More generally, given the def

efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma

in the context of his brother's own net worth!' Similarly, the defendant provides no details regarding the "investment interests" of his friend Mr. Mitchell, nor any reason to believe the loss of those "interests" would be meaningful to Mr. Mitchell, let alone the defendant. More generally, given the def

efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma

in the context of his brother's own net worth.6 Similarly, the defendant provides no details regarding the "investment interests" of his friend Mr. Mitchell, nor any reason to believe the loss of those "interests" would be meaningful to Mr. Mitchell, let alone the defendant. More generally, given the def

efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma

in the context of his brother's own net worth!' Similarly, the defendant provides no details regarding the "investment interests" of his friend Mr. Mitchell, nor any reason to believe the loss of those "interests" would be meaningful to Mr. Mitchell, let alone the defendant. More generally, given the def

efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma

in the context of his brother's own net worth!' Similarly, the defendant provides no details regarding the "investment interests" of his friend Mr. Mitchell, nor any reason to believe the loss of those "interests" would be meaningful to Mr. Mitchell, let alone the defendant. More generally, given the def

efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma