United States v. Boustani
356 F. Supp. 3d 246
E.D.N.Y2019Background
- Defendant Jean Boustani, a 40‑year‑old international businessman (citizen of Lebanon, Antigua and Barbuda) was indicted in Dec. 2018 on conspiracy charges relating to an alleged $2 billion fraud, bribery, and money‑laundering scheme; maximum exposure if convicted is substantial (cumulative statutory maximum ~55 years).
- Arrested in the Dominican Republic and transferred to the U.S.; Magistrate Judge Kuo ordered detention on Jan. 2, 2019 for risk of flight and allowed renewal of bail application; Boustani appealed the detention to the district court.
- Defense proposed an intensive bail package: $20M personal recognizance bond secured by $1M cash, surrender of travel documents, strict Pretrial Services supervision, home confinement with 24‑hour armed private security (Guidepost), GPS monitoring, surveillance technology, and visitor/travel restrictions; Defendant signed a broad waiver consenting to use of force by Guidepost.
- Government opposed release, arguing Boustani has substantial resources, no U.S. ties, prior conduct showing ability and willingness to evade detection (alleged false travel documents, facilitation of foreign bank accounts), and strong incentive to flee.
- The district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s detention de novo, applied 18 U.S.C. § 3142 factors, and held the Government proved flight risk by a preponderance and that no conditions could reasonably assure appearance; appeal denied and detention continued.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Boustani's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boustani is a flight risk | Wealth, foreign citizenships, lack of U.S. ties, alleged role as principal in an international fraud with significant sentence exposure create strong incentive and ability to flee | Private security, surrender of passports, bond and cash, GPS/home confinement make flight virtually impossible | Court: Government met preponderance standard; risk of flight established |
| Whether any conditions can reasonably assure appearance | No: proposed conditions (private armed guards, $1M collateral, surrendered passports) insufficient given resources, foreign ties, and alleged deceptive conduct | Yes: rigorous package (24/7 armed private security, surveillance, travel limits, counsel oversight) has precedent and prevents escape | Court: No combination of conditions here would reasonably assure appearance; private security insufficient substitute for detention |
| Weight of evidence bearing on bail | Proffered emails, bank records, and documentary evidence show active, central role in bribery/kickbacks and laundering, increasing motive to flee | Evidence is not dispositive; defenses (extraterritoriality, lack of domestic conduct) may negate U.S. jurisdiction; Indictment insufficiently specific | Court: At bail stage, evidence appears strong enough to weigh against release (supports flight risk) |
| Adequacy of proposed financial conditions and sureties | $1M cash and absence of U.S. assets or sureties insufficient given defendant's >$11M in reported assets and potential third‑party funding; unknown source of funds problematic | $20M bond secured by $1M cash and private guaranty, plus private security, is meaningful and consistent with cases releasing similarly situated defendants | Court: Collateral and lack of verified, forfeitable U.S. sureties do not meaningfully deter flight; financial conditions inadequate |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (Bail Reform Act permits pretrial detention where no conditions can assure safety of community or appearance)
- United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007) (when evidence is strong and sentence exposure substantial, motive to flee increases; discussion of private security concerns)
- United States v. Ferranti, 66 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 1995) (dangerousness requires clear and convincing evidence)
- United States v. Jackson, 823 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1987) (flight‑risk findings require preponderance of the evidence)
- United States v. Abuhamra, 389 F.3d 309 (2d Cir. 2004) (evidence admissible by proffer at detention hearings)
- United States v. Leon, 766 F.2d 77 (2d Cir. 1985) (district court reviews magistrate detention decisions de novo)
- United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403 (9th Cir. 1985) (courts cautious about overweighing detention‑stage evidence of guilt)
- United States v. Bruno, 89 F. Supp. 3d 425 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (wealth can increase flight risk; courts concerned about disparate treatment if wealthy defendants can buy private confinement)
- United States v. Banki, [citation="369 F. App'x 152"] (2d Cir. 2010) (discusses private security as a condition of release and circuit uncertainty)
- United States v. Bonilla, [citation="388 F. App'x 78"] (2d Cir. 2010) (passport surrender alone may not overcome presumption of flight risk)