UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Criminal Action No. 24-239-1 (CKK) DOUGLAS EDELMAN, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION (June 20, 2025)

Defendant Douglas Edelman was charged with orchestrating one of the largest tax-evasion

schemes in American history. While awaiting trial, Edelman violated his conditions of release.

As a result, this Court ordered that he be detained. Recently, Edelman entered a guilty plea (but

not a plea agreement) to some (but not all) of the charges against him.

Edelman then moved for temporary release pending sentencing. After a hearing, and

having considered the parties’ submissions, the relevant legal authority, and the entire record

before it, the Court orally granted Edelman’s motion. See Min. Order (June 18, 2025). This

Memorandum Opinion explains the conclusions underlying that order.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Edelman’s Pretrial Release, Violation, and Detention

This Court has discussed at length the circumstances giving rise to Edelman’s pretrial

detention. See Mem. Op., ECF No. 53 (United States v. Edelman,

(D.D.C.

Dec. 12, 2024)). For present purposes, an abbreviated summary suffices.

In July 2024, Edelman—a U.S. citizen living abroad—was arrested in Ibiza, Spain. Mem.

Op. at 3. Two months later, he appeared in this District for arraignment by Magistrate Judge

Moxila A. Upadhyaya.

Edelman pleaded not guilty to all thirty counts of the Indictment, and

1 Magistrate Judge Upadhyaya ordered Edelman released pending trial on conditions of release he

had negotiated with the Government.

Under that order, Edelman was released to the Pretrial

Services Agency’s High Intensity Supervision Program.

Among other things, Edelman was

required to surrender his passport, submit to GPS monitoring, and restrict his movements to within

one mile of his residence in Alexandria, Virginia.

He was also ordered to “have no direct

contact (other than through legal counsel) with the co-conspirators named or identified in the

Indictment.”

Just four days later, Edelman violated that no-contact order. See Mem. Op. at 14. In fact,

“Edelman violated the condition that he not contact alleged co-conspirators at least 29 times in just

the first 46 days of his pretrial release.”

at 14–15. The Court found Edelman’s messages with

one co-conspirator (whom Edelman knew to be a cooperating witness) particularly troubling.

Mem. Op. at 10. Those messages concerned assets held by Galactea Trust.

The Government

contends that the trust is a sham designed by Edelman to shield his wealth from taxation by the

United States. See

Edelman insists that the trust is legitimate and that its assets belong to his

wife and children. See id. at 11. That dispute was, and remains, a central question in this litigation.

Edelman’s messages repeatedly suggested that he would attempt to influence the stewards

of the trust to release millions of dollars to the cooperating witness. Mem. Op. at 10–14. And the

Court found that Edelman contacted that witness in willful violation of his release order and with

the intent to avoid detection. Id. at 16. Edelman’s messages raised the concern that he would

attempt to covertly influence potential witnesses against him if he remained on release. Id. at 15.

The Court concluded that Edelman had violated his conditions of release. See

(b)(1)(B). And the Court further concluded that Edelman was “unlikely to abide by any

2 condition or combination of conditions of release” moving forward. See

§ 3148(b)(2)(B). So

the Court revoked Edelman’s release and ordered him detained pending trial. See id. § 3148(b).

Edelman appealed that order. Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 55. But the D.C. Circuit

affirmed. United States v. Edelman,

(D.C. Cir. Feb. 21, 2025) (per curiam).

And Edelman has now been detained for about six months.

B. Subsequent Developments

After Edelman’s detention in December 2024, this litigation continued apace. In January

and February, the parties arranged for, and took, the remote deposition of a witness located in the

United Kingdom. See Order, ECF No. 64. In March, Edelman’s counsel raised concerns about

his competency stemming from discussions with Edelman in the course of plea negotiations. See

Min. Order (Mar. 14, 2025). After reviewing reports from three different doctors, the Court

concluded in April that Edelman is competent to stand trial. See Min. Order (Apr. 4, 2025). At

that time, the parties informed the Court that Edelman had rejected the Government’s latest plea

offer but that negotiations were ongoing. See

By May, those negotiations had stalled. See

Min. Order (May 16, 2025). So Edelman took a different tack.

On May 21, Edelman entered, and the Court accepted, a partial, “open plea.” Without a

plea agreement with the Government, Edelman pleaded guilty to Counts 1–10 of the Indictment—

tax evasion for the years 2006–2012, false statements about the ownership of his businesses during

that period, and conspiracy to conceal that ownership throughout the period of the indictment.

But Edelman did not change his plea as to Counts 11–30. Those counts concern the period

between 2013 and 2020, after Edelman purported to transfer his assets to the trust discussed above.

During that time, the assets continued generating income, but Edelman did not pay taxes on that

income because—in his view—the income belonged to the trust and its beneficiaries. In effect, to

3 paraphrase the Government, Edelman’s defense has shifted from “I never owned the assets” to “I

owned the assets until 2012, but then I gifted them to my wife through the trust.” See Gov’t’s

Opp’n, ECF No. 82, at 9. The merits of that defense remain an open question.

Because the parties have not reached a plea agreement, the Government may still attempt

to resolve that question through a trial on Counts 11–30. But the parties have agreed to first

proceed to sentencing on Counts 1–10. And at sentencing, the parties will dispute the validity of

the trust in the context of ascertaining the total tax loss attributable to Edelman’s offense conduct

for Counts 1–10. See Joint Notice of Authority, ECF No. 78. The Government will argue the trust

was a sham, that Edelman structured the trust as part of the same course of conduct underlying his

guilty plea to Counts 1–10, and that the tax loss attributable to Edelman’s offense conduct thus

includes income earned on trust assets from 2013–2020. Edelman, by contrast, will argue that the

trust was legitimate and that, as a result, trust income forms no portion of the tax loss.

The Court’s resolution of those competing arguments will likely obviate a trial. As the

parties have explained, the sentencing guidelines in this case are driven by the value of the tax

loss. See Joint Notice of Authority, ECF No. 78. So if the Government prevails on its argument

at sentencing, Edelman’s base offense level on Counts 1–10 would be identical to the level

resulting from a guilty verdict on all 30 counts at trial. And the Government could pursue the same

restitution it would have following a trial. Trial on the remaining counts would thus be unlikely.

If instead the Government fails to prove the invalidity of the trust at sentencing, a subsequent trial

under a more burdensome beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard would also be unlikely.

Against this backdrop, Edelman moved for release pending sentencing. See Def.’s Mot.,

ECF No. 81. The Government opposed. See Gov’t’s Opp’n, ECF No. 82. Edelman replied. See

Def.’s Reply, ECF No. 83. And the Court held a hearing on Edelman’s motion. Min. Order

4 (June 18, 2025). At the hearing, the Court heard argument from counsel for both parties and

engaged in an extended colloquy with Edelman about his plans in the event of his release, his

financial and living arrangements, and other matters.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

By default, this Court “shall order” that a defendant like Edelman “awaiting imposition or

execution of a sentence” be detained.

(a)(1). But the Court need not do so if it

“finds by clear and convincing evidence” that the defendant “is not likely to flee or pose a danger

to the safety of any other person or the community if released” on personal recognizance or on

conditions.

In other words, the Court must “make the same flight risk and dangerousness

assessment that the Bail Reform Act requires” for pretrial detention, “only, now, detention is

presumed, and it is the defendant’s burden to convince” the Court that he should be released.

United States v. Wiggins,

, 353–54 (D.D.C. 2020) (KBJ). 1

III. ANALYSIS

For the reasons that follow, although a close case, the Court concludes by clear and

convincing evidence that, subject to restrictive conditions of release, including those in effect

before Edelman’s detention and additional conditions discussed at the June 17 hearing, Edelman

is neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.

A. Flight Risk

Before Edelman violated this Court’s order that he not contact co-conspirators, he was

released subject to home detention and GPS monitoring. Release Order, ECF No. 16, at 2–3. He

surrendered his passport. Pretrial Compliance Report, ECF No. 21, at 3. The Court was never

1 Edelman suggests that, given the potential for trial on the remaining counts, the Court might treat his motion as one for reconsideration of the Court’s earlier order under

(f) or look to

(i), which permits release where “necessary for preparation of the person’s defense or for another reason.” See Def.’s Mot. at 7. The Court does not reach those issues because Edelman prevails under

(a)(1).

5 alerted to any issues regarding Edelman’s compliance with his location-monitoring conditions

prior to his detention. And the Court never determined that Edelman was a flight risk while subject

to those conditions. See generally Mem. Op., ECF No. 53.

As the Court sees the issue then, the question is whether Edelman’s detention and guilty

plea have changed the flight-risk calculus—either because the burden of persuasion has now

shifted to Edelman, or because changed circumstances have increased the risk that he will flee.

The Government argues that Edelman “now has greater reason to flee” than he did while

awaiting trial because he is certain to face punishment for his admitted criminal conduct. Gov’t’s

Opp’n at 8. That may be so. But the Court agrees with Edelman that there is no reason to suspect

that his ability to flee from justice has changed materially in the time since his detention. See

Def.’s Reply at 6–7. Indeed, the Court’s colloquy with Edelman at the June 17 hearing revealed

that Edelman’s access to the resources necessary to his facilitate his flight is limited and that

Edelman’s attorneys are essentially responsible for coordinating his personal finances.

Further, the Court has tailored Edelman’s conditions of release to accommodate for any

increase in Edelman’s incentive to flee as a result of his guilty plea. Edelman will be subject to

home incarceration, GPS monitoring under the supervision of Pretrial Services, and a prohibition

on his entering, or even approaching, any airport, marina, embassy or consulate. In short, on

release pending sentencing, Edelman will be subject to even more restrictive conditions than those

the Government once agreed were sufficient to deter his flight pending trial.

The Court also notes that Edelman’s guilty plea, however incomplete, suggests that he is

ready to face the consequences for his crimes. The Government is no doubt correct that Edelman’s

“plea and sentencing strategy is an attempt to avoid” criminal liability for some of the

Government’s allegations and preserve the trust assets for his family from any restitution award.

6 Gov’t’s Opp’n at 9. The Court is not blind to the strategy at play. But this is a criminal prosecution.

The defendant is entitled to strategize to limit his liability. And the tack Edelman has taken—

“dealing with major issues at sentencing to conserve resources for everyone involved”—suggests

an effort to shield trust assets from restitution through a streamlined, legitimate judicial process

rather than by facilitating flight. See Def.’s Reply at 11–12.

Indeed, even if Edelman had the means to flee, the Court could (and would) proceed to

award restitution in his absence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(c); United States v. Jordan,

(11th Cir. 2000); United States v. Robinson,

(6th Cir. 2004); United

States v. Achbani,

(7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Rivera-Nazario,

, 660 (1st Cir. 2023).

Accordingly, the Court concludes by clear and convincing evidence that Edelman is not

likely to flee while released pending sentencing on home incarceration and GPS monitoring.

B. Dangerousness

There has never been any suggestion that Edelman, a septuagenarian charged with financial

crimes, poses a danger to the physical safety of the community. Nor, given the nature of Edelman’s

offenses and his present station, is there any serious risk that he will reoffend while on release.

Instead, the risk that concerned this Court at the time of Edelman’s detention was the risk that he

would disregard his conditions of release and contact his co-conspirators in an attempt to corruptly

influence witnesses against him at trial. See Mem. Op., ECF No. 53, at 14.

But that risk no longer justifies Edelman’s detention for two reasons.

First, the consequences of Edelman interfering with witnesses are less severe now that

Edelman has entered an open plea. As explained, a trial on the remaining counts, though possible,

is unlikely. And although witnesses will surely appear at the sentencing hearing scheduled for

7 November 17, 2025, the co-conspirator witnesses central to the Court’s earlier concerns are

unlikely to take on the prominent role they would have at trial.

Second, and much more importantly, the Court’s trust in Edelman to comply with his

conditions of release has grown significantly in the last six months. When the Court ordered

Edelman detained, it stressed Edelman’s “demonstrated untrustworthiness,” “sense of contempt”

for these proceedings, and evident disrespect for this Court’s orders. Mem. Op. at 17–18. Those

judgments about Edelman’s demeanor and credibility, combined with the constraints on the

Pretrial Services Agency’s ability to monitor his electronic communications, led the Court to

conclude “that nothing short of detention [could] ensure that Edelman will not contact his alleged

co-conspirators.” Id. at 19.

Since then, the Court’s view has changed. Edelman has appeared before this Court

repeatedly and without issue during the period of his detention. He entered a guilty plea as to

Counts 1–10 without equivocation. And his briefing on his motion for release and demeanor in

the hearing on that motion appeared to show genuine contrition for his earlier violations and a

sincere commitment not to run afoul of his conditions of release again. The Court’s impression of

Edelman following the June 17 hearing is that his time in pretrial detention has deterred future

misconduct and that his principal goal in seeking release pending sentencing is to spend time with

his children and assist his attorneys in preparing for sentencing proceedings.

Further, the Court has crafted additional conditions of release to ensure that Edelman does

not engage in any misconduct related to arranging financial windfalls for his co-conspirators in the

future. On release pending sentencing, Edelman will not be allowed to own a smartphone, laptop,

or other device with internet access. His family may not bring him any such devices. Edelman is

further prohibited from discussing the liquidation of any trust assets, except through counsel. And

8 in the event any such assets are liquidated, Edelman will be required to report that liquidation to

Pretrial Services. These conditions diminish the concerns that animated the Court’s decision to

detain Edelman following his initial violations.

It remains the case, as the Government notes, that Pretrial Services cannot effectively

monitor Edelman’s devices to ensure that he will not contact his alleged co-conspirators. But now,

unlike in December, Edelman has convinced the Court that it can take him at his word. The Court

has no doubt that Edelman understands the sanctions that will follow should he abuse this Court’s

trust again. And the Court is of the mind that Edelman’s pretrial detention has deterred future

noncompliance. In short, Edelman has made the necessary effort to re-earn the Court’s trust.

Accordingly, the Court further concludes by clear and convincing evidence that Edelman

is not likely to pose a danger to the community if released on restrictive conditions.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court found that Edelman is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any

person or the community if released pending sentencing on the conditions imposed by the Court’s

original Release Order. See

(a)(1). Having made that finding, the Court was

required to, and did, order that Edelman be released pending sentencing. See

(the Court “shall

order” such release).

Dated: June 20, 2025.

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge

9