Giuliani-Linked Defendant Parnas to Remain Free on Bail as Judge Rejects Prosecutors' Bid to Revoke
Federal prosecutors asked Manhattan U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken to revoke Parnas' bail package after they discovered alleged misstatements and omissions he made after his arrest in October at Washington Dulles International Airport.
December 17, 2019 at 03:03 PM
5 minute read
A federal judge on Tuesday declined to revoke the bail of Lev Parnas, the Rudy Giuliani associate charged in Manhattan with campaign finance violations, finding that he had not intentionally tried to hide assets from prosecutors.
U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken of the Southern District of New York acknowledged several "concerning" statements Parnas made about his financial condition but said they did not rise to the level of intentional deception, as prosecutors from the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office had claimed.
"There's certainly lots of suspicious information here … but I don't know that that's clear and intentional misstatements such that bail should be revoked at this point," Oetken said following about 90 minutes of argument.
Federal prosecutors asked Oetken to revoke Parnas' bail package after they discovered alleged misstatements and omissions he made after his arrest in October at Washington Dulles International Airport. When taken into custody, Parnas was waiting to board a plane with a one-way ticket to Vienna.
Earlier in December, Parnas' attorney, Joseph Bondy, asked the court to modify his client's bail terms so that he could leave the house during the day, as long as he stayed away from "airports, boat docks or train terminals."
Prosecutors said last week that they learned about previously undisclosed assets while preparing their response to the request, including payments from a law firm, a contract to purchase a $4.5 million house and a $1 million loan deposited into his wife's bank account from a Swiss lawyer for indicted Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash.
Parnas was charged alongside fellow Giuliani associate Igor Fruman in a scheme to funnel foreign money into U.S. elections in order to buy political influence. Both men were released on $1 million bond, secured by $200,000 cash, and were ordered to submit to electronic monitoring ahead of trial.
Parnas' attorney, Joseph Bondy, earlier in the month requested a modification to his client's bail terms that would allow him to leave the house during the day, on the condition that he stay away from "airports, boat docks or train terminals."
Oetken's ruling Tuesday afternoon denied that request.
Prosecutors said last week that in preparing their response they had learned about previously undisclosed assets, including loans from a law firm, a contract to purchase a $4.5 million house and a $1 million transfer to his wife's bank account from a Swiss lawyer for Firtash.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebekah Donelseki said on Tuesday that the "lies" and "omissions," combined with Parnas' connections overseas, made his an "extraordinary risk of flight" in the Southern District.
"We still have serious questions about where Mr. Parnas is getting his money," she said.
Bondy countered that most of the information the government cited was available to prosecutors when they agreed to modify his initial terms of Parnas' release in October. Parnas, he said, had complied with every condition of his bail and was trying to cooperate with a congressional subpoena for material related to its impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump.
"No one was trying to hide that … no one from the government apparently asked," he said. "Every one of these transactions was right in front of them."
Bondy explained that Firtash's lawyer, Ralph Oswald Isenegger, made the "loosely papered" loan of $1 million to Parnas' wife, Svetlana, in September but pulled it after Parnas was indicted in the U.S. He said the pretrial services form Parnas completed upon his arrest in Virginia did not specify the assets of Parnas' spouse, and the bank records were later turned over at the request of prosecutors in New York.
Donaleski said that by that time it was too late, because prosecutors at that point had already agreed to reduce the amount Parnas had agreed to post in order to appear in Manhattan federal court. She argued that Parnas and his wife, who is unemployed, had both treated the loan as income and that it was really a payment to Parnas from a foreign benefactor.
"Much of his travel this fall was paid by a Ukrainian oligarch who is fighting extradition," Donaleski said, referring to Firtash.
"There are people abroad in Ukraine that don't want Mr. Parnas sitting here in New York," she said.
Bondy, however, said Parnas had no remaining connections overseas and feared for his safety in Ukraine. Parnas, he said, had "no interest" in maintaining a relationship with Firtash, who has been indicted in Illinois for his role in trying to bribe Indian officials.
"Mr. Parnas has completely burned those bridges," Bondy said.
Oetken said Tuesday that Parnas' foreign ties were not a factor in his bail decision because those connections were well known at the time of his bail agreement. Instead, Oetken said he looked to the severity of Parnas' omissions and Bondy's explanations to prosecutors' "reasonable application" to revoke bail.
"It may have violated the spirit" of Parnas' bail, "but I don't know that it rises to the level of intentional misstatements," he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readTrump Picks Personal Criminal Defense Lawyers for Solicitor General, Deputy Attorney General
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250