United States v. LAM
1:24-cr-00417
D.D.C.May 14, 2025Background
- The Government arrested Hamza Doost and Kunal Mehta under a Superseding Indictment, which charges them with their roles in a large RICO conspiracy centered around money laundering and cybercrime.
- After their arrest, Magistrate Judge McCormick in the Central District of California denied the Government’s motion for pretrial detention but temporarily stayed the release to allow for review by the District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The Government moved for an emergency stay and de novo review of the magistrate's release order in the D.C. District Court, arguing that the defendants pose a significant flight risk.
- Both defendants allegedly have means, opportunity, and motivation to flee, including histories of international travel to non-extradition countries and access to substantial funds.
- The D.C. District Court applied the Nken v. Holder four-factor standard to decide if a stay of the release order was appropriate pending its review.
- Ultimately, the court issued a stay of the release order, pending expedited review, and directed defense counsel to promptly participate in the continued proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to stay the magistrate judge’s release order | Stay is needed to prevent flight and irreparable harm | Liberty is the norm before trial | Stay is granted, release order stayed pending review |
| Likelihood of Government's success on motion to detain | Defendants are severe flight risks, strong evidence | No clear counter, but freedom interest | Government likely to succeed, justifies stay |
| Irreparable injury to the Government if stay is not granted | Defendants may flee and frustrate prosecution | No direct response | Flight would irreparably injure the prosecution |
| Injury to Defendants from brief detention pending review | Short-term detention is justified by high risk | Detention prior to trial is serious | Stay is justified despite injury to defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (articulates the four-factor standard for stays pending review)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (establishes that pretrial detention is an exception to the general rule of liberty before trial)
- United States v. Munchel, 991 F.3d 1273 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (discusses standards and considerations for pretrial release and detention)
- United States v. Vasquez-Benitez, 919 F.3d 546 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (clarifies inquiries into flight risk and dangerousness under the Bail Reform Act)
- United States v. Simpkins, 826 F.2d 94 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (preponderance of the evidence standard applies to flight risk findings under the Bail Reform Act)