United States v. GULKAROV
1:22-cr-00020
| S.D.N.Y. | Jan 24, 2022Background
- Defendants Alexander Gulkarov and Roman Israilov are charged in a multi-count indictment alleging a seven-year, $30 million health-care fraud, money laundering, Travel Act bribery conspiracy, and related offenses; Gulkarov also faces a charge for conspiracy to obstruct justice.
- Both were arrested in January 2022 and released on substantial bail packages that include a condition barring contact with co-defendants or alleged co-conspirators except through counsel.
- Gulkarov and Israilov are brothers‑in‑law who regularly attend close family gatherings; they moved to modify the no-contact condition to permit unsupervised contact with each other at family events subject to advance notice and accompaniment by another adult.
- The Government opposed modification, proffering that the Indictment alleges extensive witness tampering and suborning of perjury (nearly a dozen physicians), fabrication of documents, and laundering of proceeds through a law firm—conduct showing a risk of obstruction if unsupervised contact were allowed.
- The court evaluated the request under the Bail Reform Act factors (danger, risk of obstruction, least restrictive conditions) and found the no-contact condition reasonably necessary to address the risk of further obstruction and witness tampering.
- Court ordered pretrial release with the existing no-contact restriction intact; Israilov’s motion to modify his release conditions was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should allow Gulkarov and Israilov unsupervised contact at family gatherings despite a bail condition barring contact with co-defendants outside counsel | Gov: Deny—Indictment and proffered evidence show past witness tampering, document fabrication, and laundering; unsupervised contact risks further obstruction | Defs: Grant—family ties are strong; limited, noticed meetings with another adult will prevent misconduct and avoid undue family hardship | Denied—court found risk of obstruction and witness tampering credible and the restriction reasonably necessary |
| Whether spouses or other family members can supervise such meetings | Gov: No—wives received substantial payments from alleged fraud, so they are not reliable supervisors | Defs: Yes—wives or grandmothers can ensure compliance | Denied—court agreed Government’s proffer made family members implicated by payments unsuitable supervisors |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ferranti, 66 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 1995) (government may proceed by proffer at a bail proceeding)
- United States v. Dupree, 833 F. Supp. 2d 241 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (economic or pecuniary harm may constitute dangerousness under Bail Reform Act)
- United States v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (economic harm relevant to dangerousness and bail conditions)
- United States v. Reynolds, 956 F.2d 192 (9th Cir. 1992) (danger can include pecuniary or economic harm)
- United States v. Friedman, 837 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1988) (court must assess risk of obstruction and whether conditions will reasonably assuage it)
- United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141 (2d Cir. 1986) (broad district court discretion in obtaining information bearing on Bail Reform Act factors)
- United States v. Bellomo, 944 F. Supp. 1160 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (court discretion to consider proffers and indictment allegations in bail determinations)