Epstein Secrets

ed States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 403 (2d Cir. 1985). "[E]ven a single incident of witness tampering .. . [may be] sufficient to revoke bail." LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 134. To order detention based upon risk of flight, the Court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that "that no conditions cou

endant's lack of tics to the United States and his extensive tics to Brazil with which no extradition treaty exists. In our view, his forfeiture of Slmillion worth of assets in the United States would not deter him from flight when in Brazil he has significant wealth, a lucrative job, the presence of his

ed States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 403 (2d Cir. 1985). "[E]ven a single incident of witness tampering .. . [may be] sufficient to revoke bail." LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 134. To order detention based upon risk of flight, the Court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that "that no conditions cou

endant's lack of tics to the United States and his extensive tics to Brazil with which no extradition treaty exists. In our view, his forfeiture of Slmillion worth of assets in the United States would not deter him from flight when in Brazil he has significant wealth, a lucrative job, the presence of his

ed States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 403 (2d Cir. 1985). "[E]ven a single incident of witness tampering .. . [may be] sufficient to revoke bail." LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 134. To order detention based upon risk of flight, the Court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that "that no conditions cou

endant's lack of tics to the United States and his extensive tics to Brazil with which no extradition treaty exists. In our view, his forfeiture of Slmillion worth of assets in the United States would not deter him from flight when in Brazil he has significant wealth, a lucrative job, the presence of his

ed States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 403 (2d Cir. 1985). "[E]ven a single incident of witness tampering .. . [may be] sufficient to revoke bail." LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 134. To order detention based upon risk of flight, the Court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that "that no conditions cou

endant's lack of tics to the United States and his extensive tics to Brazil with which no extradition treaty exists. In our view, his forfeiture of Slmillion worth of assets in the United States would not deter him from flight when in Brazil he has significant wealth, a lucrative job, the presence of his