United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: ORDER SETTING
CONDITIONS OF RELEASE
CECILIA M. ROMERO, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Court held a detention hearing over a period of two days on
October 29, 2019, continuing to October 30, 2019 (ECF 15,
27). At the hearing, the United States argued for Mr.
Tomilin's detention under 18 U.S.C. §3142 (f)(2)(a),
namely, that Mr. Tomilin poses a serious risk of flight.
government must prove risk of flight by a preponderance of
the evidence. United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d
610, 617 (10th Cir. 2003). In making its determination at the
detention hearing, the Court takes into account the following
factors: the nature and circumstances of the charged offense,
the weight of the evidence against the defendant, the history
and characteristics of the defendant including his character,
physical and mental condition, family ties, employment,
financial resources, length of residence in community,
community ties, past conduct, history of substance abuse,
crime, and court appearances, whether the defendant was on
probation, parole, or release pending trial, sentencing,
appeal, or completion of a sentence- and the nature and
seriousness of danger posed by the person's release.
See 18 U.S.C. §3142(g).
Nature and Circumstances of the Charged Offense
Bail Reform Act requires this Court to consider “the
nature and circumstances of the offense, including whether
the offense is a crime of violence, a violation of 1591, a
Federal crime of terrorism, or involves a minor victim or a
controlled substance, firearm, explosive, or destructive
device.” 18 U.S.C. §3142(g)(1). The charges in
this case include conspiracy to commit wire fraud,
promotional money laundering, and violations of money
laundering spending provisions. These charges do not carry a
presumption of detention.
Weight of Evidence Against Defendant
the Government nor Defense Counsel meaningfully discussed the
weight of the evidence against Mr. Tomilin in their argument.
Therefore, this Court did not find that the Government met
its burden as to this factor.
History, Characteristics, and Financial Resources
Government argued that because Mr. Tomilin has access to
significant financial resources, ties to a foreign country,
and dual citizenship with the Republic of Russia, he poses a
serious flight risk.
the United States argued that Mr. Tomilin spends a majority
of his time outside of the United States and is in possession
of various passports from both the United States and Russia.
On the record, Defense Counsel clarified that Mr. Tomilin was
in possession of one United States passport, one Russian
internal travel passport, and two Russian passports for
international travel. All passports were issued to Mr.
Tomilin himself, in his name. With respect to the two Russian
passports for international travel, the Court viewed them,
and Defense Counsel confirmed one was out of pages for visa
stamps which was why a second was sought. The Government did
not present any counter evidence. No. nefarious motive for
Mr. Tomilin's possession of multiple passports was
established. Further, Mr. Tomlin has agreed to surrender all
his passports, as well as the passports of his wife and two
minor children to the Clerk of Court.
Government also proffered that a recent legitimate business
transaction left Mr. Tomilin with significant liquid assets
in the amount of $2, 000.000.00. On the second day of the
hearing, Defense Counsel clarified that the proceeds of this
transaction are being paid in monthly installments of $25,
000.00 through the end of 2020 and are Mr. Tomilin's only
source of income. While the Court recognizes Mr.
Tomilin's significant resources, the totality of the
funds is not readily available to Mr. Tomilin to aid in any
concern to the Government was Mr. Tomilin's lack of ties
to Utah. The Government argued that Mr. Tomilin has no
permanent residence in the state, has homes and property in
Egypt, Russia, Pennsylvania, and had been looking for rental
property in Miami, Florida. At the hearing, Defense Counsel
clarified that Mr. Tomilin did own a one-half interest in a
home in Utah, as well as a home in Pennsylvania secured by a
mortgage. The Pretrial Services Report indicated Defendant
has been in the United States for the past fifteen years, and
lives in Utah. Defendant's wife, three-year old and
newborn child also reside in Utah. There was no
substantiation of the home in Egypt, or of Mr. Tomilin's
intent to rent property in Miami. While Mr. Tomilin will not