UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. Criminal Action No. 1:21-cr-00322 (CJN)

PAUL MAUCHA,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendant Paul Maucha, soon to be tried on conspiracy, fraud, and money laundering

charges, has spent the two years since his initial arrest on pretrial release. But after the Government

moved detention on the basis of pretrial violations and sought revocation of a

Magistrate J order permitting his release under amended conditions, the Court ordered his

detention. The Court sets out here the findings and reasons behind that decision.

I. Background

On April 27, 2021, a grand jury returned an indictment charging Maucha with one count

of Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud in violation of

; three counts of Wire Fraud

in violation of

; and two counts of Engaging in Monetary Transactions in

Criminally Derived Property in violation of

. Indictment, ECF No. 1. These

charges, in short,

fraud scheme with his co-defendant Melisa Shapiro. See

Maucha and Shapiro allegedly made

misrepresentations about a shell company they controlled, American Eagle Services Group Inc.

See

.

1 Maucha was arrested on these charges on May 12, 2021, and then ordered released to the

supervision of the Pretrial Services Agency on personal recognizance. See Order Setting

; Appearance Bond, ECF No. 7-1. The

conditions of release required, among other things, that Maucha (1) not violate federal, state, or

local law while on release ; (2) surrender any passport to the Pretrial Services Agency; (3) not

obtain a passport or other international travel document ; (4) stay within the District of Columbia,

Maryland, and Virginia area, absent court approval of travel outside that area; and (5) contact the

Pretrial Services Agency for a pretrial interview following his release. Release Order at 1 3.

Maucha acknowledged the penalties and sanctions that could come with a violation of the release

conditions, including detention upon revocation of release.

.

Nearly e on these conditions, the Government moved for

an order of detention and revocation of release, alleging that Maucha had violated the condition

that he not commit a federal, state, or local crime. See

In particular, the Government argued

that Maucha had falsely represented to a Pretrial Services officer, during an interview that occurred

two days after his release, that he was born in New York and is a U.S. citizen. Through such

conduct, the Government alleged, Maucha violated

, which makes it a felony

. . . make[] any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent

statement or

Government (except for statements or representations by a party to a judge

or magistrate judge in a judicial proceeding).

(a) (b). Maucha was arrested, and

he appeared for a hearing on the revocation motion before a Magistrate Judge.

2 Following that hearing, on June 2, 2023, the Magistrate Judge orally denied the

G . First, the Magistrate Judge found under

(b)(1)(A) that probable cause existed to believe that Maucha violated

.

June 2, 2023 H 5-1. Second, the Magistrate Judge found under

(b)(2)(A) that more restrictive conditions of release home incarceration and location

monitoring would assure that Maucha would not flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other

person or the community.

at 17 18. The Magistrate Judge also concluded that the Government

had not met its burden of showing that Maucha was unlikely to abide by release conditions under

(b)(2)(B).

The Magistrate Judge therefore ordered with

amended conditions of home incarceration and location monitoring.

. The Government

then moved for the amended release order. See

Mot. for Emergen

No. 92. That See

18 19; June 6, 2023 Minute Order.

After additional briefing and another hearing on June 13, the Court orally granted the

G release order, requiring instead that

Maucha be detained pending his trial, which is currently set to begin in approximately five weeks.

II. Legal Standards

The Bail Reform Act, at

, provides that a person released pending trial

who

(a).

the Act directs the judicial officer to order revocation and detention if the officer further concludes

3 that

on the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. §

Id. § 3148(b). As in the Fourth Amendment context,

probable cause under § reasonable

caution in the belief United States v.

Gotti,

(2d Cir. 1986) (quoting Texas v. Brown,

(1983)

(plurality opinion)).

The four factors to be considered under § 3142(g) are

the community that woul

(g). A judicial

officer may amend conditions of release in accordance with §

there are conditions of release that will assure that the person will not flee or pose a danger to the

Id. § 3148(b).

The Government may file a motion for revocation of an order of release issued by a

magistrate j Id.

§ 3145(a). The standard of a

review of a magistrate j . United States v. Munchel,

(D.C.

Cir. 2021). To the extent that s based on the same

evidentiary record that was before the Magistrate Judge, the Court conducted de novo review, the

standard requested by the Government and uncontested by Maucha. See

4 4 5. In addition, the Government correctly noted that other courts in this district, and other circuit

courts, have applied de novo review to magi issued under

§ 3142 (and again, Maucha did not seek a change of course here). Id.; see, e.g., United States v.

Chrestman,

, 23 25 (D.D.C. 2021) (citing cases). But the Court of Appeals has

explained that when the Court considers additional evidence not presented to the

Magistrate Judge, the

the District Court is not really whether to defer (or not) to a finding made by the Magistrate

Judge on the same evidentiary record Munchel,

. As detailed below, the Court

considered substantial additional evidence here.

III. Analysis

A. Probable Cause Supports the Belief That Maucha Committed Federal Crimes During Release

1. False Statements to Pretrial Services Officer

The Magistrate Judge concluded that the Government demonstrated probable cause of

crime while on release, specifically the felony of making false

statements to an officer in violation of

, by lying about his citizenship status.

. The Government, of course, does not challenge that finding, but

Maucha argues as an alternative that

her probable cause determination was erroneous.

probable cause. To start, a substantial showing by the Government supports the belief that Maucha

is not, in fact, a U.S. citizen. A U.S. Customs and Border Protection record reflects that a Kenyan

citizen named Paul Modi Maucha, born on , received an H-2 Temporary Worker

Visa that was issued in July 1988 and valid until April 1989. -3; see also,

5 e.g. . 87-2 (Pretrial Services interview report

as ) at 6, ECF No. 87-7 (

. The Government proffered Social Security Administration records showing

that Maucha obtained a Social Security number, in connection with his visa, that he has used

consistently since.1 see, e.g., -4. After

examining Department of Homeland Security and State Department records, the Government has

uncovered no indication that Maucha has adjusted his immigration status or left the United States

after Further, the Government provided some

additional connection to Kenya on his Facebook account. See

Ex. 6 at 9, ECF No 87-6 );

see also , ECF No. 87-12 (Mauch

nd birth country of both parents as Tanzania). On top of this showing

citizenship status, the Government submitted evidence that Maucha made a materially false

representation to a Pretrial Services officer regarding that status during an interview that occurred

just two days after his release, on May 14, 2021. A record of the interview conducted by a Pretrial

Services officer reflects representation that he is a U.S. citizen, born in New York.

Ex. 2, ECF No. 87-2.

Maucha does not argue and he certainly does not present evidence to establish that he

is a U.S. citizen. Instead, the only argument Maucha has offered to counter a finding of probable

cause of this crime is that the Pretrial Services interview report does not indicate the source of the

information recorded in other words, there is no evidence that Maucha communicated to Pretrial

1

6 Services that he is a U.S. citizen. See Revocation Mot.

at 1 2, ECF No. 93; at 2 3,

ECF No. 94. The Court concludes, as did the Magistrate Judge, that enough evidence exists to

resolve this doubt for purposes of finding probable cause, which does not require perfect proof.

The Government proffered that, based on discussions with the supervisor of the Pretrial Services

officer who interview report

resulted from that , ECF No. 95-1. Additionally, emails

efforts to procure a copy of the interview report reflect that the

information recorded in the report was entered directly into the agency database from the

interview. See s. 6 8, ECF Nos. 92-6 to -8. The Government also presented the

Magistrate Judge with (before

the interview was conducted), where fields of u

re a 91-3; see also

9 10. Following the interview, of course, those fields were filled in.

Ex. 2, ECF No. 87-2. And finally, while records from the Joint Automated Booking System

(JABS) show that Maucha provided the same birthplace and citizenship information upon his

arrest, he appears to have corrected information about his height and weight during his subsequent

interview with Pretrial Services. Compare , ECF No. 87-1

height and 160-pound weight), with , ECF No. 87-2 (Pretrial Services interview report

165-pound weight); see . This further supports

the inference that Maucha provided new information to the Pretrial Services officer and that the

officer did not merely import the information from another source.

7 Altogether, the submissions establish probable cause that Maucha made

false representations to a Pretrial Services officer during the interview regarding his citizenship

status.

2. Illegal Voting in 2022 General Election

After filing its initial motion for revocation, the Government submitted additional evidence

to the Magistrate Judge that Maucha committed a federal misdemeanor offense while on release

by illegally voting in violation of

, which restricts voting by aliens. See

(a) (b). The Magistrate Judge did not determine whether the Government demonstrated

probable cause as to this offense. Upon its own review of the record, however, the Court concludes

that probable cause exists here as well. The Executive Director of the D.C. Board of Elections

certified that a voter named current home address,

voted in the 2022 General Election in the District of Columbia (as well as several other elections

not relevant here) -9. sole response that the Executive

only that someone purporting to be Paul Maucha registered in that name and

voted in the 2022 election someone else committed

voter fraud by pretending to be Maucha falls flat. Review Far-fetched

speculation about potential voter fraud does not defeat probable cause here.

B. No Conditions of Release Will Assure That Maucha Will Not Flee

After finding probable cause that Maucha committed a federal crime while on release, the

Magistrate Judge concluded that the more stringent conditions of release of home incarceration

and location monitoring would be adequate to assure that Maucha would not flee. See

(b)(2)(A). The Court reaches a different conclusion after its own weighing of the § 3142(g)

factors, based in substantial part on new information not made available to the Magistrate Judge.

8 1. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense

As the Magistrate Judge concluded, the nature of the charged offenses, which are based on

acts of deception, enhances the risk of flight. See 14. The Court also

places substantial weight on the seriousness of the consequences that Maucha could face if

convicted on those charges. Even without considering his immigration status, Maucha faces a

maximum prison sentence of 20 years on Count One (Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud); 20 years

on Counts Two through Four (Wire Fraud); and 10 years on Counts Five and Six (Engaging in

Monetary Transactions in Criminally Derived Property).

, 1349, 1957(b)(1);

see United States v. Otunyo, No. 18-251,

, at *4 (D.D.C. Apr. 28, 2020)

arges against defendant is the significant period of

. The Government has estimated the potential Sentencing

Guidelines range for , and Maucha has not offered

a competing calculation. The realistic possibility of this

substantial term of imprisonment incentivizes flight.

The potential even more grave

when taking his immigration status into account. Already, the Department of Homeland Security

has imposed an immigration detainer against Maucha to initiate deportation proceedings. See June

6, 23 25. Maucha has all but conceded the point that he is not a U.S. citizen

and that he is subject to deportation, offering no evidence or even argument to the contrary, and

apparently suggesting to the G -deport See

at 17 18, 22 23;

. since his initial

release; though he now faces a significant likelihood of deportation regardless of whether he is

convicted, the prospect of his remaining in the United States after serving his sentence has

9 dissipated. By staying for trial (and any sentencing), however, Maucha would subject himself to

the added risk of a substantial term of incarceration on top of deportation.

2. Weight of the Evidence

The Magistrate Judge did not address in her oral ruling whether the weight of the evidence

of the charged offenses likewise favors detention, but Maucha offers no reason to conclude

otherwise. Based on the information currently available to the Court, the evidence against Maucha

appears to be strong. -conspirator Shapiro has already pleaded guilty to

Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud in violation of

and is expected to testify

against him at his trial, having agreed to cooperate with the prosecution. See Shapiro Plea

Agreement at 5 7, ECF No. 45. In a detailed Statement of Offense submitted in connection with

her guilty plea, Shapiro acknowledged that she

to attract investors and lenders to AESG, as alleged in the

Indictment. Statement of Offense ¶¶ 4 5, ECF No. 46; see Indictment ¶¶ 7 8. The Government

also anticipates that several alleged victims will testify about the misrepresentations that Maucha

Witness List, ECF No. 68-4). And the Government has pointed to document-based evidence that

the fraud conspiracy involved misrepresentations about access to capital; the doctoring of

bank statements; and efforts to funds were

not delivered. 10 13; ECF Nos. 92-10 to -13.

3. History and Characteristics of the Defendant

The Magistrate favored the

ultimate conclusion that he does not pose a serious risk of flight warranting detention after

weighing competing considerations: on the one hand (favoring detention), his immigration status

10 with release conditions over the course of the two years since his arrest, as well as the fact that he

has not fled yet. 14 17. T own review of the record leads it to

strike a different balance.

To be sure, the fact that Maucha has not already fled the jurisdiction, despite potentially

having both the incentives and the opportunities to do so, deserves some weight. See

(g)(3)(A)

real citizenship status was only recently

discovered by the Government militates against viewing the entire period of his past compliance

as a reliable forecast of the future

the United States is likely to lead to his deportation, and he may not have anticipated the discovery

of this fact before the Government first raised concerns about his immigration status in connection

with this case in December 2022 or January 2023. And it is only through the litigation of this

detention issue that the Government has fully confronted Maucha with the evidence it has

regarding his immigration status.

However abstract this analysi

surfaced allows insight into the flight risk that Maucha poses

in a more concrete way. The Government filed a police report from June 8, 2022, in which Maucha

reported having lost his Kenyan passport and having made a similar police report for the same

reason in 2015.2 -15. sudden

2 No evidence has been presented that Maucha has ever possessed a U.S. passport. To the contrary, relation to AESG activities list an invalid passport number that matched New York See 8 at 4 5, ECF No. 87-8 4, ECF No. 87-9.

11 concern about a passport, that he claimed to have reported stolen seven years prior

particularly troubling given that he was prohibited from any international travel under his

. At the next hearing, Maucha explained that he

had lost his Kenyan passport and reported it lost in 2015, but then applied for a replacement that

was also lost;

Maucha also represented to this Court through counsel that he then applied for a new Kenyan

passport that is, that he applied for a new Kenyan passport while on pretrial release and further

that he believes that passport may be in the process of being sent to him now.

a new Kenyan passport comes dangerously close to a violation

initial release order

Release Order

obtain a Kenyan passport while on pretrial release raises serious concerns

that he surrender any

passport to Pretrial Services, in combination with the requirement that he not obtain any new

international travel document, effectively prevented international travel.

His endeavor to

obtain a Kenyan passport while on release, then, tends to show that he attempted to circumvent his

release conditions at best, and that he planned to flee at worst. Either way, this new information

counsels against giving Maucha too much credit for his record of compliance so far, and it

increases the seriousness of the flight risk that he poses.

The § 3142(g) factors also instruct courts to consider, as part of the history and

was on . . . 3142(g)(3)(B). As discussed above, the Court has

found probable cause that Maucha committed multiple federal crimes while on release in

12 connection with his immigration status, which supports detention by suggesting his disregard for

his willingness to violate the law even while under court supervision.

Last, like the Magistrate Judge, the Court is not prepared to determine with certainty the

strength of . 17 18. Maucha

represented during the initial hearing both that he has a 15-year-old daughter who lives in the area

Id. at 4. Some contrary

indications, unexplained by Maucha, exist as to both of those claims. See , ECF No.

87-2 (Pretrial Services interview report reflecting no dependents and no family in the D.C. area);

Countercomplaint at 3, Bank of New York Mellon v. Maucha, No. 22-cv-3673 (D.D.C. Dec. 8,

;

ECF No. 92- .

Beyond these ties, Maucha points to his now-inoperative construction business and his

He also appears to have

, ECF No 87-2. Even if credited, these

community ties would not tip the balance of this factor, let alone the ultimate flight-risk question,

in favor of release.

4. Nature and Seriousness of the Danger Posed by Release

The last § 3142(g) factor

is somewhat awkward to apply in cases

elease is the danger that he may flee, not that he

may threaten the physical safety of others.

(g)(4). But in the similar context of

3142, the Court of

13 -physical harms such as corrupting a union. Munchel,

(quotation

omitted); United States v. Hale-Cusanelli,

(D.C. Cir. 2021). That broad

understanding of danger also comports with the text of §

presumption . . . that no condition or combination of conditions will assure that the person will not

believe that the person committed any felony while on release.

(b)(2). The

presumption is not limited only to crimes involving violence.3

Even though the record now before the Court includes no substantial indication that

physical danger to others, the danger that Maucha may

engage in further criminal activity especially given the signs of deceptive behavior while on

release and even during these proceedings does favor detention, at least slightly. Both the kind

and the degree of this danger,

risk of flight here, causes the Court to give this factor relatively little weight as compared to others.

* * *

Based on all of these factors, the Court concludes that Maucha poses a serious risk of flight.

The Court has therefore carefully considered whether the restrictive release conditions that the

Magistrate Judge ordered home incarceration and location monitoring would assure that

Maucha would not flee, but has determined that they would not. Location monitoring is

unfortunately not a foolproof method of hindering defendants who are set on fleeing. See June 13,

3 The Court does not address the applicability of this presumption here, focusing instead on the question of whether conditions of release can assure appearance at trial. Nevertheless, 3142(g) factors even when flight risk is primarily at issue, so the Court likewise considers dangerousness, as a subsidiary matter, here. See United States v. Vasquez-Benitez,

, 550 52 (D.C. Cir. 2019).

14