United States v. Boustani
932 F.3d 79
2d Cir.2019Background
- Jean Boustani was charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, securities fraud, and money laundering and moved for pretrial release (bail).
- His proposed conditions included home confinement supervised by privately hired, armed security guards paid for by Boustani.
- The Government opposed release, asserting Boustani posed a serious risk of flight due to the nature of the charges, strong evidence, extensive foreign ties, frequent international travel, and substantial financial resources.
- The District Court denied bail, finding by a preponderance that Boustani was a flight risk and that no combination of conditions would reasonably assure his appearance; it noted disparities that would arise if wealthy defendants could buy private detention.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, explaining the legal standard for pretrial release under the Bail Reform Act and clarifying when privately funded security may be allowed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a wealthy defendant may be released to home confinement supervised by privately paid armed guards | Gov: Release should be denied because no conditions would reasonably assure appearance; private security would create inequity and not mitigate real flight risk | Boustani: Private armed security (paid by him) plus other conditions would reasonably assure his appearance | The Bail Reform Act does not permit a two‑tiered system where wealth lets a defendant avoid detention; private security may be allowed only if, but for the defendant’s wealth, he would not be detained. |
| Whether the District Court clearly erred in finding Boustani a flight risk | Gov: District Court correctly weighed offense seriousness, weight of evidence, foreign ties, travel, and resources | Boustani: He argued conditions could secure appearance; did not contest flight-risk finding | The Second Circuit found no clear error in the District Court’s factual findings and affirmed detention. |
| Whether wealth alone can justify detention or release | Gov: Wealth increases flight risk but cannot be the sole basis to permit private-funded release | Boustani: Wealth should be allowed to fund security that satisfies release conditions | Court: Wealth cannot be used by a defendant to avoid detention when a similarly situated poorer defendant would be detained; but wealth may be considered and private-security may be acceptable only if wealth is the primary reason he would otherwise be detained. |
| Whether disparate treatment of co-defendants and similarly situated defendants is relevant | Gov: Disparity counsels against permitting privately funded detention for wealthy defendants | Boustani: Not persuasive; his offer should be evaluated on effectiveness | Court: Disparity is a legitimate consideration; permitting private jails for the wealthy would undermine fairness and the Bail Reform Act’s uniform standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007) (recognized that private security/home confinement may sometimes suffice but warned against wealthy defendants buying release)
- Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708 (1961) (principle that law must apply equally to rich and poor)