Judge blasts Ghislaine over failed bid for bail
She said she only had £2.6m to her name – then offered £21m bond!
GHISLAINE Maxwell’s attempt to get out of jail on $28.5million bail (£21million) backfired spectacularly after a judge said it ‘only solidifies’ the risk of her fleeing.
Judge Alison Nathan raised suspicions over the fact the sum was so much higher than the original $3.5m (£2.6million) the socialite claimed to be worth after her arrest in July.
In court documents released last night, the judge wrote that Maxwell was guilty of ‘misdirection’ to the court by failing to disclose her true worth until now.
And the judge said the new bail application showed the Briton had ‘ extraordinary financial resources’ that could be used to ‘flee the country undetected’.
The judge added Maxwell’s ‘lack of candour is, if anything, stronger now’.
The scathing assessment was part of a 22-page filing to federal court in New York which set out Judge Nathan’s reasons for denying Maxwell bail for a second time.
Maxwell was denied bail on Monday but the filing was only published last night.
The ruling means she will remain in the grim Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn until at least July next year when her trial is due to take place.
The 58-year- old has been held there since July when she was arrested for allegedly procuring girls as young as 14 for her former lover – paedophile Jeffrey Epstein – to abuse. The socialite is also accused of perjuring herself in a civil case. She has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Maxwell’s second bail application had included more than a
‘Lack of candour’
dozen letters from family and friends in support. Of the $ 28.5million bail package, $22.5million (£16.5million) in cash and assets come from her and husband Scott Borgerson, 44, a tech entrepreneur.
The rest is made up of $5million (£3.7million) in property from her family and a $ 1m (£730,000) bond from a private security company.
The judge wrote: ‘ The new information provided in the renewed application only solidifies the court’s view that the defendant plainly poses a risk of flight and that no combination of conditions can ensure her appearance.’
She said that Maxwell ‘providing incomplete or erroneous information to the court or pretrial services’ was a ‘significant’ factor in her decision.
After her arrest in July, Maxwell claimed she had no access to her financial records and was piecing her assets together from memory. But Judge Nathan said that the difference between $3.5million and $22.5million was so big that Maxwell’s explanation stretched credibility.
The judge wrote: ‘Even if the defendant was unable to provide an exact number, however, the difference between the number she originally reported to pretrial services and the number now presented to the court makes it unlikely that the misrepresentation was the result of the defendant’s misestimation rather than misdirection.
‘In sum, the evidence of a lack of candour is, if anything, stronger now than in July 2020, as it is clear to the court that the defendant’s representations to pretrial services were woefully incomplete.
‘That lack of candour raises significant concerns as to whether the court has now been provided a full and accurate picture of her finances and as to the defendant’s willingness to abide by any set of conditions of release’. Judge Nathan noted Maxwell had leaned heavily on a letter from Mr Borgerson, saying that she would never leave the US and abandon him.
He wrote that Maxwell was ‘wonderful and loving’ and he believed in her innocence.
But Judge Nathan said ‘flight would not pose an insurmountable burden for the defendant’. Elsewhere in the ruling Judge Nathan said that, contrary to Maxwell’s claims, the case against her remained ‘strong’.
The allegations from the three accusers would be backed up by flight records and other witnesses’ corroborating testimony, the judge said.