Added at 12/21/24 9:00pm: I enclose below a ChatGPT summary of this blog. I encourage readers to take a look. Pretty good summary.
We don’t usually see revocation of bail in tax crimes cases, but the case today is not the normal tax crimes case. In United States v. Edelman, ___ (D. D.C. No. No. 24-239-1 Dkt 53 Memo Opinion 12/11/24), CL here and GS here, the Court opens the opinion (Slip Op. 1, footnote omitted):
Defendant Douglas Edelman is alleged to have orchestrated one of the largest tax-evasion schemes in American history. Following his arrest in Spain, Edelman was transferred to the United States and released to the supervision of the Pretrial Services Agency. Later, the Government moved for revocation of Edelman’s release on the basis of pretrial violations. After a hearing, and upon consideration of the parties’ submissions, the relevant legal authority, and the entire record before it, 1 the Court orally ordered that Edelman’s release be revoked and that Edelman be detained pending trial. See Min. Order (Dec. 11, 2024). The Court summarized on the record the factual findings and legal conclusions underlying that order. This Memorandum Opinion relates those findings and conclusions in further detail.
A. Edelman’s Alleged Conduct (Slip Op. 2-3);
B. Edelman’s Arrest and Release (Slip Op. 3); and
C. Alleged Violations and Procedural History (Slip Op. 4-6)
Pretrial
Services first alleged that Edelman had contacted an individual, identified as Co-Conspirator
3, in violation of the conditions of release and requested that the court issue
a judicial directive to comply with the conditions of release. The Government
thereafter alleged another violation of that condition with another individual,
identified as Co-Conspirator 4. In each case, screenshots of the communications
by apps (first WhatsApp as to Co-Conspirator 3 and then Signal as to
Co-Conspirator 4 set to make the message disappear after 1 day) were submitted.
Pretrial Services took no position after the Government’s submission. The Government
then submitted a motion for revocation of release.
The Court then outlines the legal standard (Outline Level III Slip Op. 6-8) under 28 USC § 3148(b), here. The Court starts with the general rule that ““In our society[,] liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception,” citing United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 755 (1987). The Court then discusses the requirements of § 3148(b). The Court then applied, as § 3148(b) requires, a clear and convincing standard under § 3148(b)(1)(B)that the defendant has violated the condition of release and then applied a preponderance of the evidence standard as to whether it is “unlikely” that Edelman will abide by the conditions under § 3148(b)(2)(B).
The Court recounts (Slip Op. 9-14) the substance of the communications, particularly with Co-Conspirator 4 identified as Robert Dooner who has had a long relationship with Edelman but who had entered a “public cooperation” agreement with the Government in 2023. The latter communication involved an offer to help secure a financial windfall for Dooner and thus “curried favor with that witness in the process.” (I do not recount here the precise nature of the “financial windfall” but just point instead to the discussion at Slip Op.9-14.)
