300 F. Supp. 3d 287
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Defendant Harry Meir Mimoun Amar, an Israeli–Moroccan dual national, is charged in D.C. with conspiracy to commit wire fraud (a multinational BEC fraud allegedly defrauding several companies of over €10 million). He was arrested in Israel after contesting extradition for seven months and brought to the U.S.
- Amar moved for pretrial release under 18 U.S.C. § 3142, offering conditions: $2,000,000 bond (secured by relatives’ property), home confinement, GPS monitoring, regular reporting, and a consent-to-extradition pledge.
- DHS placed a detainer noting Amar’s removable-alien status and potential custody if released; the government clarified DHS might pursue expedited removal rather than hold him for trial.
- The magistrate initially had Amar’s consent to detention without prejudice; the district court held a hearing and reviewed Pretrial Services’ recommendation that no conditions would reasonably assure appearance.
- The court assessed § 3142(g) factors (offense nature, weight of evidence, history/characteristics, danger to community) and concluded Amar poses a serious flight risk and denied release.
Issues
| Issue | Amar's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amar can be released pending trial under the Bail Reform Act | Amar: He poses low flight risk — no prior criminal record, consented to extradition, family ties in U.S., strong incentive to litigate, will accept strict conditions and a $2,000,000 bond | Gov: Charges are serious, evidence strong, Amar is an alleged international mastermind with overseas ties and access to funds, dual national including non‑extradition country (Morocco), so risk of flight is high | Denied — court found by a preponderance that no conditions will reasonably assure appearance |
| Weight of the Government’s evidence and impact on flight risk | Amar: Disputes role and defenses (e.g., extraterritoriality) reduce flight incentive | Gov: Multiple cooperators, victim corroboration, recorded conversations show significant evidence and jeopardize Amar’s incentive to remain | Court credited government proffer as weighty, increasing flight risk |
| Adequacy/enforceability of Amar’s proposed assurances (bond, GPS, consent to extradition) | Amar: Will post $2,000,000 bond (secured by relatives’ property), accept GPS/home confinement, and sign anticipatory extradition consent; New Jersey Pretrial Services would monitor closely | Gov: Bond may be illusory (unknown defendant assets; secured by others’ property), GPS and monitoring can be circumvented by sophisticated defendant; anticipatory extradition waivers likely unenforceable | Court held proposed conditions insufficient to overcome flight risk |
| Relevance of DHS detainer/possible deportation to Bail Reform Act analysis | Amar: DHS removal could obviate detention issues; court should not factor deportation into release decision | Gov: Represented DHS would likely deport rather than hold; but court did not rely on DHS detainer in its decision | Court declined to base decision on DHS detainer; even excluding deportation considerations, denial stands |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Xulam, 84 F.3d 441 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (preponderance standard for risk of nonappearance under Bail Reform Act)
- United States v. Patriarca, 948 F.2d 789 (1st Cir. 1991) (court must assess defendant’s assets when setting a forfeiture bond to assure compliance)