Jeffrey Epstein in 2017. Photo: New York State Sex Offender Registry via AP

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Thursday ruled that wealthy defendants cannot use their resources to fund private security accommodations as a way to avoid being held on bail before trial.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court said such arrangements favor the wealthy and violate the “fundamental principle of fairness” that the law is supposed to protect the rich and poor just the same.

“To interpret the Bail Reform Act as requiring district courts to permit wealthy defendants to employ privately funded armed guards where an otherwise similarly situated defendant without means would be detained would violate this core principle,” Judge José Alberto Cabranes wrote on behalf of the court.

The ruling, in an obscure securities fraud and money-laundering case out of Brooklyn federal court, is expected to impact white-collar cases, as well as prosecutions involving wealthy defendants, such as Jeffrey Epstein, who last month was denied in his bid to wait out trial on underage sex-trafficking charges from his Manhattan townhouse.

The Second Circuit in 2007 recognized that courts may release defendants on the condition of home confinement in instances where the accused are able to pay for private armed security guards.

Since, then, however, the appeals court has noted its reservations with granting bail to defendants based on their wealth, and instructed judges that they need not routinely consider the retention of private security guards when mulling bail motions.

Thursday’s ruling, however, “expressly” endorsed the view that continuing to accommodate such requests would “foster inequity and unequal treatment in favor of a very small cohort of criminal defendants who are extremely wealthy.”

Still, the ruling did come with the caveat that privately funded guard arrangements could be allowed when a defendant is deemed a flight risk primarily “because of” wealth.

“In other words, a defendant may be released on such a condition only where, but for his wealth, he would not have been detained,” Cabranes said.

The Second Circuit said that in the underlying case, Brooklyn federal Judge William F. Kuntz II had considered “several” other factors in denying Jean Boustani’s proposed bail package, including the weight of the apparent evidence against him, the seriousness of the alleged offense and the possibility of a lengthy prison sentence.

U.S. Judge Richard M. Berman last month considered similar factors in rejecting a similar request by Epstein in the Southern District. Berman also noted that Epstein had an apparently “uncontrollable” appetite for sexual contact with underage girls and would pose a danger to the community if released.

Epstein, who is facing a trial no earlier than July 2020, has appealed that July 18 decision in what was considered a long-shot bid to have the bail ruling overturned.

Though a different panel of judges may be assigned to hear his appeal, the court would be expected to follow the same reasoning it laid out in Thursday’s opinion.

Epstein’s attorney did not respond Thursday to a call seeking comment on the ruling.

Read More:

Jeffrey Epstein’s Lawyers Balk at Possible June 2020 Trial in Sex-Trafficking Case

Possible Suicide Attempt Unlikely to Slow Jeffrey Epstein’s Sex Trafficking Case, Attorneys Say

‘Uncontrollable’ Jeffrey Epstein Denied Bail Ahead of Sex Trafficking and Conspiracy Trial