United States v. Jack Kachkar
701 F. App'x 744
11th Cir.2017Background
- Jack Kachkar was indicted on nine counts of wire fraud affecting a financial institution for an alleged scheme by his company Inyx to obtain loans using fraudulent invoices and altered documents.
- Magistrate judge denied the government's initial detention motion but ordered release conditioned on $1M corporate and $1M personal surety bonds, home confinement, electronic monitoring, surrender of travel documents, and extradition agreements; government did not object at that hearing.
- 27 days later the government moved to vacate the magistrate’s release order and sought detention; the district court held a new hearing and ordered pretrial detention.
- District court found strong evidence of guilt (testimony that Kachkar directed creation of invoices, misleading bank about other lenders, and altered documents), over $100M in unaccounted-for funds with transfers to foreign accounts, and indicia of foreign ties (Russian bank cards, travel to countries lacking extradition treaties).
- Court concluded no conditions could reasonably assure Kachkar’s appearance given his foreign ties, substantial financial resources, and the lengthy sentence he faces.
- Kachkar appealed, arguing errors in the district court’s assessment of evidence strength, reliance on missing funds, and omission of mitigating facts (Florida ties, health, case complexity, and prior nonflight during investigation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kachkar) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court clearly erred in finding the evidence of guilt strong | Evidence not strong because two employees swore Kachkar never instructed fraud | Proffers show employees will testify Kachkar directed invoice creation and other fraud acts | No clear error; court reasonably found evidence strong |
| Whether unaccounted-for proceeds can be used to assess flight risk | Missing funds do not prove guilt; relying on them is improper | Missing funds indicate access to financial resources relevant to flight risk | Court used missing funds to show financial resources, not to prove guilt; permissible |
| Whether court ignored mitigating factors (Florida ties, health, complexity, prior nonflight) | These facts weigh against detention and were not adequately considered | Court considered ties but found stronger foreign ties; health and counsel access addressed | Court considered and addressed these factors; decision stands |
| Whether district applied an improper district-wide standard rather than case-specific analysis | District used pattern in past cases to justify detention | District based its ruling on facts of Kachkar’s case despite comment | No error; record shows decision was case-specific |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Quartermaine, 913 F.2d 910 (11th Cir. 1990) (standard of appellate review for detention orders: mixed questions with factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. King, 849 F.2d 485 (11th Cir. 1988) (government must prove flight risk by a preponderance of the evidence)
- United States v. Gaviria, 828 F.2d 667 (11th Cir. 1987) (detention hearings may proceed by proffer; ordinary evidentiary rules do not apply)
- United States v. Ross, 131 F.3d 970 (11th Cir. 1997) (party cannot challenge errors invited by its own conduct)