Letter from Daniel A. Friedman to Judge Edward S. Kiel, July 30, 2025 — United States v. Spitzer (Dkt. 79, D.N.J.)

Summary

In a July 30, 2025 letter brief, Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel A. Friedman asks Judge Edward S. Kiel to deny Arthur Spitzer's motion to remove the pretrial release condition of GPS location monitoring. Spitzer's stated reason is a wish to swim in a backyard pool, and the ankle monitor cannot be submerged in water. The letter says the August 2024 Indictment charges Spitzer with 26 felony counts and alleges that Spitzer obtained more than $20,000,000 in mortgage loans on properties Spitzer did not own, and also fraudulently obtained COVID-19 small business relief loans. It points to Spitzer's arrest on August 26, 2024 at the United States – Canada border with a purported Mexican identification document, and argues the $250,000 bond does not mitigate the risk of flight. It lists bicycling, walking, rowing and yoga as other exercise.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK                Document 79         Filed 07/30/25   Page 1 of 5 PageID: 289




                                                                           U.S. Department of Justice
                                                                                 United States Attorney
                                                                                 District of New Jersey

ALINA HABBA                                                                       401 Market Street, Fourth Floor
Acting United States Attorney                                                    Camden, New Jersey 08101-2098

DANIEL A. FRIEDMAN                                                               Direct Dial: 856.968.4867
Assistant United States Attorney                                                 Email: Daniel.friedman2@usdoj.gov


July 30, 2025

Via ECF

Hon. Edward S. Kiel
United States District Judge
District of New Jersey
Mitchell H. Cohen Courthouse
One John F. Gerry Plaza
Camden, New Jersey 08101

           Re:        United States v. Spitzer, et al., Crim. No. 24-528 (ESK)

Dear Judge Kiel:

        Please accept this letter brief in opposition to defendant Arthur Spitzer’s motion to remove
the pretrial release condition of GPS location monitoring. The location monitoring condition
remains necessary to mitigate a substantial risk of flight, and Spitzer’s reason for seeking removal
of the condition—his wish to go swimming—is not a compelling reason for removal.

     I.         Background.

         In August 2024, the grand jury returned an Indictment charging Spitzer with 26 felony
counts: 1 count of bank and wire fraud conspiracy; 1 count of bank fraud; 8 counts of wire fraud;
2 counts of aggravated identity theft; 1 count of making a false statement to a financial institution;
and 13 counts of money laundering. ECF No. 1. The Indictment alleges that over the course of
two years, Spitzer orchestrated a scheme to defraud property owners and mortgage lenders by
obtaining mortgage loans for real estate properties that he did not own. Id. He obtained more than
$20,000,000 in mortgage loans by using fraudulent documents purporting to show that he had the
authority to apply for mortgage loans. Id. He took the money then caused the mortgage loans to
default, leaving the true property owners subject to foreclosure and eviction. Id. During the same
time period, Spitzer also fraudulently obtained millions of dollars of COVID-19 small business
relief loans by submitting applications that contained false statements. Id.

        On August 26, 2024, Spitzer was arrested at the United States – Canada border. Spitzer
had in his possession an identification document bearing his photograph that was ostensibly issued
                                                      1

Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK           Document 79          Filed 07/30/25    Page 2 of 5 PageID: 290




by the Mexican government. Exhibit A. At his initial appearance in the Western District of New
York, a magistrate judge imposed a number of conditions of release, including home incarceration
with location monitoring. Before his arraignment in the District of New Jersey, Pretrial Services
recommended removing the location monitoring condition. At the arraignment, notwithstanding
Pretrial Services’ recommendation to remove location monitoring, this Court imposed the
condition of stand alone monitoring – i.e., Spitzer is not subject to home confinement or detention,
but he is subject to GPS monitoring to ensure that he does not travel to areas not permitted or to
any airports, ports, or restricted areas. ECF Nos. 9, 12. This Court also imposed a requirement of
a $250,000 bond secured by property owned by a family member. ECF Nos. 12, 22.

       In September 2024, Spitzer requested that the location monitoring condition be suspended
for several multi-day periods in October 2024, including one 11-day period, because Jewish
holidays would make it difficult for him to charge the monitor’s battery. ECF No. 26. During a
subsequent teleconference, this Court stated that the location monitoring condition was important
and signaled that it would deny Spitzer’s modification request, at which point Spitzer withdrew
his motion. ECF No. 28.

        On several occasions, without the objection of the Government, this Court has granted
Spitzer permission to travel out of the district for family and holiday events. ECF Nos. 39, 40, 41,
42, 43, 44, 47, 49, 67, 68.

   II.     Applicable Law.

        The Bail Reform Act directs courts to order the release, pending trial, on personal
recognizance, of a person charged with an offense unless the court determines that “such release
will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required or endanger the safety of any
other person or the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b). If the court does make such a
determination, the court may impose conditions of release which must be “the least restrictive
further condition, or combination of conditions” to meet those ends. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c).

   III.    The Current Conditions Are the Least Restrictive Conditions Required to Ensure
           the Defendant’s Appearance.

        The current conditions, including the location monitoring condition, are the least restrictive
conditions required to mitigate a substantial risk of flight. At Spitzer’s arraignment, and again
when he sought to temporarily suspend the use of GPS monitoring, this Court properly determined
that the location monitoring condition was necessary to ensure his appearance. The risk that
Spitzer will flee and not appear for court proceedings is substantial. He has been charged with 26
serious felonies, which together carry the possibility of more than 100 years in prison. The
evidence against him, as set forth in a detailed 54-page indictment, is strong. See 18 U.S.C. §
3142(g)(2) (a court shall consider the weight of the evidence against a defendant when determining
whether there are conditions of release that can reasonably assure his appearance). Importantly,
the charges involve dishonesty, alleging a massive fraud scheme, identity theft, and forgery of
documents. See Indictment, ECF No. 1. Spitzer repeatedly pretended to own properties that he


                                                  2

Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK           Document 79          Filed 07/30/25     Page 3 of 5 PageID: 291




did not own and used fake documents, often involving the forged signatures of the property
owners, to obtain mortgage loans secured by those properties.

       Spitzer has a history of accessing large sums of money, which would facilitate his flight.
The Indictment details how he obtained multiple personal and mortgage loans totaling
approximately $20 million, and how he engaged in many transactions, each involving hundreds of
thousands of dollars, involving his bank accounts.

        Spitzer also has strong ties to a foreign country. He told Pretrial Services that he previously
lived in England for four years and has friends in England. He has taken multiple trips in recent
years to England and to other European countries.

        Another significant contribution to a risk of flight is Spitzer’s possession of a purported
Mexican identification document when he was arrested. Exhibit A. While no determination has
been made regarding the authenticity of the document, there is no apparent basis for Spitzer
legitimately obtaining and carrying a foreign identification document. His travel history includes
no travel to Mexico, and specifically no travel to Mexico during or near the purported issue date
of the identification, in November 2022.

        The Court properly considered all of these facts when it imposed the location monitoring
condition less than one year ago, and when it reaffirmed the necessity of the condition in October
2024. The necessity of location monitoring to assure Spitzer’s appearance for court proceedings
has not diminished since then.

   IV.     Spitzer’s Desire to Engage in His “Preferred Form of Exercise” Is Not a
           Compelling Reason to Modify His Conditions Of Release.

        The reason offered by Spitzer for removing location monitoring is that he wishes to
exercise by swimming in his backyard pool, but he cannot submerge his ankle monitor in water.
Spitzer’s desire to swim in his pool does not warrant removal of a critical instrument that helps
assure he does not flee. Spitzer’s argument for removing his ankle monitor proceeds in three steps:
(1)                                                                               ; (2) his preferred
form of exercise is swimming; and (3) he cannot swim with the ankle monitor because it cannot
be submerged in water. The Court can credit the exercise recommendation without modifying the
location monitoring condition. Swimming is not the only form of exercise available to Spitzer.
He can exercise in a myriad of other ways, none of which require removal of his ankle monitor.
Spitzer asserts that he is physically limited from engaging in certain forms of exercise due to a car
accident, but does not submit any medical records or any letter from a physician who has physically
examined him or assessed any physical limitations. Even if he is physically limited from engaging
in certain forms of exercise, there are many ways to exercise in a low impact manner other than
swimming, such as bicycling, elliptical training, walking, rowing, and yoga. Notably, his
“preferred” form of exercise is the only one that would require removal of his ankle monitor.




                                                  3

Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK           Document 79          Filed 07/30/25    Page 4 of 5 PageID: 292




   V.      The Other Conditions of Release Do Not Adequately Mitigate the Risk of Flight.

       Spitzer’s argument that the other conditions of release are sufficient to reasonably assure
his appearance are not persuasive.

        First, Spitzer contends that the $250,000 bond secured by a property owned by his aunt
and uncle mitigates the risk of flight. He asserts that there was no secured bond when the
magistrate judge in Buffalo, NY initially imposed location monitoring, but fails to mention that
this Court continued location monitoring at his arraignment, overruling his argument and a
recommendation from Pretrial Services that location monitoring could be removed after the bond
was secured. Further, Spitzer’s track record, including the offenses he is charged with committing
in this very case, show that whatever moral suasion conferred by property secured by relatives in
other cases, Spitzer is not likely to be deterred by the possibility that a family member will be
compelled to forfeit their property. The victim of Count 2 of the Indictment is Spitzer’s own great
uncle (his grandmother’s brother). Spitzer caused his great uncle to transfer the deed to his
apartment to Spitzer under false pretenses, then Spitzer applied for and obtained a $997,500
mortgage loan secured by his great uncle’s property. Spitzer then caused the loan to default by
not making the required payments, risking his great uncle’s eviction. Spitzer has demonstrated the
capacity to cause great harm to his relatives. The possibility that his actions would harm other
relatives is not a sufficient deterrent to flight.

       Second, Spitzer argues that he would never seek to flee by himself and leave his wife and
children behind. But nothing prevents his family from joining him. His family members have not
surrendered their passports and are subject to no travel restrictions.

        Third, Spitzer asserts that he has been compliant with his conditions of release, he has not
traveled to an airport or other prohibited place, and has retained counsel who are actively defending
him in this matter. Such conduct is expected of all pretrial releasees and is not a reason to modify
carefully tailored conditions of release. It is fair to conclude that Spitzer’s compliance is a result
of the conditions, not evidence that the location monitoring condition is unnecessary. The
argument that location monitoring is unnecessary because he has not fled “is little more than a
suggestion that the Court should toss away its umbrella because it is not getting wet.” United
States v. Perkins, No. 4:22-CR-00246, 2024 WL 1118984, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2024) (denying
motion to modify release conditions) (citing Shelby Cnty., Ala. v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, 590 (2013)
(Ginsburg, J. dissenting)).

   VI.     Conclusion.

        The location monitoring condition is part of the least restrictive combination of conditions
that reasonably assures Spitzer’s appearance at trial, and to serve what is likely to be a lengthy
prison sentence if convicted. Circumstances have not changed since the Court imposed the
condition, and his desire to swim does not warrant modifying his conditions of release. The Court
should deny his motion.



                                                  4

Case 1:24-cr-00528-ESK   Document 79       Filed 07/30/25   Page 5 of 5 PageID: 293




                                  Respectfully submitted,

                                  ALINA HABBA
                                  Acting United States Attorney


                                  /s/ Daniel A. Friedman
                              By: DANIEL A. FRIEDMAN
                                  ELISA T. WIYGUL
                                  Assistant U.S. Attorneys




                                       5

File and source

File

79.pdf

Size

188,317 bytes

SHA-256

97fde28a9b4910db44357d23af9ee3feec78ea39a190fe33c0e5b4332cf2a90b

Our copy

79.pdf