Memorandum — No. 1:23-cr-00209 (Dkt. 96, M.D. Pa.)

Summary

A Memorandum, Document 96, filed October 22, 2024 in United States v. Bruce Jin, Cr. No. 1:23-CR-209 (Case 1:23-cr-00209-CCC), in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, signed by United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson. The memorandum denies the defendant's motion to reconsider the detention order (Doc. 88). It describes the indictment as alleging an international money laundering conspiracy and scheme to defraud targeting state unemployment compensation systems and COVID relief programs, including more than $35,000,000 in alleged fraud proceeds transferred to bank accounts in China. The court concludes that he identified no change in the law or clear error and that electronic monitoring would not overcome the flight risk finding.

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

Full text

          Case 1:23-cr-00209-CCC   Document 96    Filed 10/22/24   Page 1 of 10




                 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
               FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                      :     Cr. No. 1:23-CR-209
                                              :
                                              :     (Judge Conner)
v.                                            :
                                              :     (Magistrate Judge Carlson)
                                              :
BRUCE JIN                                     :


                                   MEMORANDUM

     I.      Factual Background and Procedural History

          This case comes before us on a motion to reconsider the detention order

previously entered against the defendant, Bruce Jin. (Doc. 88). With respect to Jin,

a federal grand jury returned an indictment 1 finding found probable cause to believe

that Jin and others engaged in a sweeping international, transnational money

laundering conspiracy and scheme to defraud. (Doc. 6). The extensive and

sophisticated scheme outlined in the indictment involved multi-faceted frauds

targeting state unemployment compensation systems and COVID relief programs.

As outlined in the indictment, Jin played a pivotal role in this far-reaching

conspiracy. In the course of this conspiracy, Jin received teller transfers reflecting


1
 In this context it is well settled that “an indictment by a grand jury conclusively
demonstrates that probable cause exists to implicate a defendant in a crime”. United
States v. Suppa, 799 F.2d 115, 118 (3d Cir. 1986)

                                          1
      Case 1:23-cr-00209-CCC       Document 96    Filed 10/22/24    Page 2 of 10




fraud proceeds from co-conspirators totaling $1,500,000 per week. In turn, Jin

caused more than $35,000,000 in alleged fraud proceeds to be transferred overseas

to bank accounts in China. (Id.)

      Jin is a United States citizen but was born in China and plainly maintains

significant financial ties to that country as evidenced by the more than $30,000,000

in overseas wire transfers which he allegedly made to Chinese bank accounts.

Moreover, at the time of his arrest on these charges, Jin engaged in what we found

to be a pattern of evasion, concealment, and deception, coupled with what appeared

to be a premeditated and calculated effort to prepare for flight. At the time of his

arrest, Jin submitted to a pretrial services interview. In that interview Jin

acknowledged possession of a U.S. passport but specifically denied possessing any

other passports or international travel documents. (Jin PTS Report). Jin also initially

expressed a reluctance to discuss his personal finances, but later provided the court

and pretrial services with a confused, contradictory and deceptive picture regarding

his wealth and holdings. In this interview Jin reported that he had a monthly income

of $11,000, savings of $60,000, and monthly expenses of at least $6,000. However,

curiously, Jin also reported going to casinos two or three times each week and

spending between $5,000 and $10,000 on each gambling excursion. (Id.)

      These statements by Jin were riddled with inconsistencies. For example, Jin’s

account of his weekly gambling expenses cannot be reconciled with his self-reported


                                           2
      Case 1:23-cr-00209-CCC        Document 96    Filed 10/22/24   Page 3 of 10




income and assets. Further, Jin’s statement of his financial affairs included no

reference to gambling winnings even though Jin stated that he spent in excess of

$10,000 a week on gambling. Instead, the government has estimated that Jin’s

reported gambling losses totaled $400,000, a sum which far exceeded Jin’s self-

reported income and assets, creating an unmistakable inference that Jin has access

to some otherwise unexplained sources of wealth. (Doc. 74, at 15). Further, none of

these statements could be reconciled with the indictment’s allegations that Jin

received up to $1,500,000 on a weekly basis and transferred some $35,000,000

overseas.

      Jin’s denial that the possessed other passports also proved to be demonstrably

false. When agents searched Jin’s home following his arrest, they found a Mexican

passport with Jin’s photograph, which had been issued under an alias, concealed in

a dryer. Moreover, cell phone GPS data placed Jin’s cell phone at the Mexican

Consulate days before his arrest.

      On these facts, Jin was detained at his initial appearance in federal court in

California as a flight risk. (Doc. 26). Jin then filed a motion with the district court

challenging this detention decision. (Doc. 59). Following a hearing on his request,

Jin’s motion for release pending trial was denied, the district court finding that:

      The Government has established that Mr. Jin repeatedly lied to pretrial
      services, most notably involving his possession of a Mexican passport
      which he procured just three days before his arrest using a pseudonym
      and while falsely representing himself as a Mexican national by birth.

                                           3
      Case 1:23-cr-00209-CCC      Document 96      Filed 10/22/24   Page 4 of 10




      Mr. Jin presented false information to Magistrate Judge Eick as well in
      an effort to justify his procurement of the fake passport. (Interpreter
      translating.) There is only one purpose in obtaining a fraudulent
      passport under a pseudonym, and that is to be able to travel
      internationally under a fake identity so that one's whereabouts become
      untraceable. (Interpreter translating.) This passport was secreted in a
      clothes dryer. (Interpreter translating.) Clearly it was placed there to
      avoid detection by law enforcement or other individuals, and his
      proffered explanation makes no sense and is not credible with respect
      to a concern over his roommate's discovery of the same. (Interpreter
      translating.) It is also clear that Mr. Jin is comfortable traveling to
      Mexico and China. He clearly has substantial overseas ties to both
      places. That's evidenced by the exhibits in the record produced by the
      Government, including his travel by vehicle to and from Mexico and
      his travel, extensive travel, and extensive living experience in China.
      (Interpreter translating.) He lives less than four hours by car from the
      Mexican border and recently engaged in travel there, including one time
      by foot. And he resided in China, a country that shares no extradition
      treaty with the United States, at various points from 2012 to 2019 and
      perhaps thereafter and was comfortable enough with his contacts there
      to send money, much of which is the subject of the underlying
      indictment. (Interpreter translating.) In short, this is a classic case for
      pretrial detention based on a risk of nonappearance, given the passport,
      the financial means, and a comfort with international travel that Mr. Jin
      has enjoyed. And for all of those reasons, I find by a preponderance of
      the evidence that Mr. Jin poses a serious flight risk and that there are
      no conditions or combination of conditions short of confinement that
      will reasonably assure his appearance at trial. The motion for release
      pending trial is denied.

(Doc. 74, at 46-48).

      Jin, who is now represented by new counsel, has filed a motion to reconsider

this detention decision, (Doc. 88), which has been referred to the undersigned. In

this motion defense counsel:

      [R]equests this Court to reconsider its September 21, 2023 Order
      because new information exists and a combination of conditions can be

                                           4
         Case 1:23-cr-00209-CCC      Document 96      Filed 10/22/24   Page 5 of 10




         set which will “reasonably assure” Mr. Jin’s appearance in court,
         including but not limited to:

         a) Mr. Jin’s adjustment to confinement has been exemplary: he has been
         in custody for more than one year without a single infraction and he has
         been a model inmate. See Exhibit 1 to accompanying brief.

         b) Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) Monitoring will provide the Court
         with real-time, 24-hour location monitoring, which will allow the
         Probation Office to monitor Mr. Jin’s compliance with home
         incarceration.

          c) GPS Monitoring, combined with strict conditions such as: home
         incarceration, computer/electronic device registration and monitoring,
         prohibition on contact with individuals outside of the United States,
         prohibition of possession of international travel documents, pre-trial
         services supervision, and undersigned counsel’s submission of all
         travel arrangements to United States Probation will reasonably assure
         Mr. Jin’s appearance in court.

(Id., at ¶ 5).

         The parties are in accord that the factual record in this case is fully developed,

and no further hearing is necessary with respect to this motion. The motion is also

fully briefed and is, therefore, ripe for resolution.

         While we commend counsel for the skill of their presentation, for the reasons

set forth below, this motion to reconsider will be denied.

   II.      Discussion

         The legal standards which govern motions to reconsider in criminal cases are

familiar ones.

         Although not specifically provided for in the Federal Rules of Criminal
         Procedure, “motions for reconsideration may be filed in criminal

                                              5
      Case 1:23-cr-00209-CCC       Document 96      Filed 10/22/24   Page 6 of 10




      cases.” United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282, 286 (3d Cir. 2003). In a
      criminal case, a motion for reconsideration is adjudicated using the
      same standards utilized for civil motions for reconsideration. Id.; see
      also United States v. Hill-Johnson, 806 F. App'x 114, 119 (3d Cir.
      2020); United States v. Moore, No. 08-cr-730, 2021 WL 4860734, at *
      1 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 19, 2021); United States v. Suggs, No. 19-cr-134, 2021
      WL 4460024, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 2021); United States v. King,
      No. 16-cr-321, 2017 WL 3087745, at *2 (M.D. Pa. July 7, 2017).

      The purpose of a motion to reconsider “is to correct manifest errors of
      law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp v.
      Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). “[A] judgment may be
      altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows at least
      one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling
      law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when
      the court granted the motion [ ]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error
      of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Max's Seafood Cafe v.
      Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).

      As the Third Circuit has noted, the scope of a motion for
      reconsideration is “extremely limited” and a party may not use the
      motion to relitigate issues the court already decided. See Blystone v.
      Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415 (3d Cir. 2011); United States v. Dupree, 617
      F.3d 724, 732-33 (3d Cir. 2010) (“Though motions to reconsider
      empower the court to change course when a mistake has been made,
      they do not empower litigants ... to raise their arguments, piece by
      piece.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

United States v. Novikov, No. CR 11-189, 2022 WL 9635105, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Oct.

17, 2022).

      In this case, Jin asks us to reconsider prior court orders directing that he be

detained pending trial as a risk of flight. In this regard, the Bail Reform Act

specifically authorizes pretrial detention of flight risks, providing that:

      (e) Detention.--(1) If, after a hearing pursuant to the provisions of
      subsection (f) of this section, the judicial officer finds that no condition

                                            6
      Case 1:23-cr-00209-CCC       Document 96      Filed 10/22/24    Page 7 of 10




      or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of
      the person as required . . ., such judicial officer shall order the detention
      of the person before trial.

18 U.S.C. § 3142(e).

      Under the Act, this risk of flight determination is made by a preponderance of

the evidence, United States v. Himler, 797 F.2d 156, 161 (3d Cir. 1986), and entails

an informed evaluation of: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged;

(2) the weight of the evidence against the person; and (3) the history and

characteristics of the person. 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (g). In making this determination, the

courts have historically considered various forms of evidence as badges of flight.

Thus, “[r]elevant factors that support a serious risk finding include the use of a

number of aliases, unstable residential ties to a community, efforts to avoid arrest,

or hidden assets. Evidence of a serious intent to flee the country in response to an

indictment also justifies detention as a serious risk of flight.” United States v.

Giordano, 370 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1264 (S.D. Fla. 2005). Applying these benchmarks

it has been held in fraud cases that detention is justified based upon flight risk, when

the defendant is charged with financial crimes resulting in millions of dollars of

losses, has significant foreign connections, substantial international travel

experience, and has a proven ability to create and use false identities. United States

v. Gentry, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1018, 1033 (D. Ariz. 2006). See e.g., United States v.

Abdurahman, 107 F. Supp. 3d 992, 996 (D. Minn. 2015) (detention based in part


                                            7
      Case 1:23-cr-00209-CCC         Document 96     Filed 10/22/24    Page 8 of 10




upon attempt to obtain forged travel documents); United States v. Hunter, No. 13-

CR-521-LTS, 2014 WL 6632965, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2014) (denying motion

to reconsider detention when false passports found in the defendant’s home); United

States v. Cole, 715 F. Supp. 677, 678 (E.D. Pa. 1988) (use of false names and access

to passports justifies detention).

      So it is in the instant case. Bruce Jin is charged in an indictment with financial

crimes which are staggering in the sophistication and breathtaking in terms of their

financial dimension. It is alleged that Jin facilitated the laundering of more than

$30,000,000 in fraud proceeds into overseas Chinese bank accounts. Thus, Jin, who

was born in China, has significant financial ties outside the United States, financial

ties which the grand jury has determined were forged through fraud. Jin also has

international travel experience, and his past descriptions of his personal finances

raise profound flight concerns since these statements strongly suggest that Jin’s

finances are a riddle, shrouded in mystery and wrapped in an enigma.

      While these factors alone would support a risk of flight determination, the fact

that Jin lied to federal officials at the time of his arrest about his acquisition and

possession of a false Mexican passport issued under an alias confirms that he

presents a grave risk of flight. This undisputed evidence is troubling and fully

supports Jin’s detention in at least three respects. First, Jin’s acquisition of this false

passport in the days immediately preceding his arrest is emblematic of calculated,


                                             8
      Case 1:23-cr-00209-CCC      Document 96      Filed 10/22/24   Page 9 of 10




premeditated planning. Second, Jin’s possession of this false passport is a clear and

irrefutable badge of flight. As the district court previously observed: “There is only

one purpose in obtaining a fraudulent passport under a pseudonym, and that is to be

able to travel internationally under a fake identity so that one's whereabouts become

untraceable.” Finally, Jin’s apparent willingness to lie about his possession of this

fake passport reveals a degree of mendacity towards the court which thoroughly

undermines any reliance that we could place upon his promises to appear as required.

      While Jin argues that his compliance with the current conditions of his

confinement demonstrates that he could be released, we disagree. The fact that Jin

has not been a disruptive detainee tells us nothing about the risk of flight he would

present if released. Rather, Jin has spoken eloquently to this risk of flight through

his conduct prior to being ordered detained, conduct that included secreting millions

of dollars overseas; lying to federal authorities; and concealing a fraudulent passport.

      Jin also argues that his compliance with court ordered electronic monitoring

would sufficiently mitigate any potential flight risk. However, it is well settled that:

      Electronic monitoring impedes but does not prevent a defendant from
      fleeing. See United States v. Orena, 986 F.2d 628, 632-33 (2d
      Cir.1993); United States v. Gotti, 776 F.Supp. 666, 672-73
      (E.D.N.Y.1991). See also United States v. Benevolence International
      Foundation, supra, 222 F.Supp.2d at 1007 (electronic surveillance
      systems can be circumvented and the monitoring equipment can be
      rendered inoperative; electronic monitoring does not stop a person from
      fleeing).



                                           9
     Case 1:23-cr-00209-CCC       Document 96     Filed 10/22/24   Page 10 of 10




United States v. Abdullahu, 488 F. Supp. 2d 433, 444 (D.N.J. 2007); United States

v. Vargas, No. 13-2044 JS, 2013 WL 3223419, at *5 (D.N.J. June 25, 2013). In this

case, given Jin’s apparent criminal sophistication, his manifest financial ties

overseas, the extent of his past flight planning, and the demonstrated degree of his

past deceits we conclude that a promise by this defendant to comply with electronic

monitoring, which would only impede flight, is inadequate to overcome the specific

and detailed flight risk finding made by the district court.

      Simply put, no grounds exist to reconsider this detention decision. Jin has not

identified any intervening change in the law which mandates his release. Nor has he

shown the need to correct a clear error of law or fact in order to prevent manifest

injustice. Finally, the new evidence cited by Jin does not alter the quantum of proof

which strongly supports Jin’s continued detention. Accordingly, this motion to

reconsider will be denied.2 An appropriate order follows.

                                        /s/ Martin C. Carlson
                                        Martin C. Carlson
                                        United States Magistrate Judge


DATED: October 22, 2024.




2
 While we deny this motion we commend Jin’s counsel for their diligence in this
matter, diligence which we are sure will serve Jin well as this case proceeds forward.
We also commend the Government for its comprehensive presentation.
                                          10


File and source

File

96.pdf

Size

189,087 bytes

SHA-256

65ff1aa5186a7a1a655be12408cde4e86bae0767ba9e16ecf14124bd3a79a085

Our copy

96.pdf

Original

No public link identified.