Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Song - Merged Docs
Song - Merged Docs
v. 24-MJ-1113
LINIAN SONG,
Defendant.
_______________________________________________
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and through its attorney, Trini E. Ross,
United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, and the undersigned Assistant
United States Attorney, hereby submits this response to the defendant, LINIAN SONG’s
motion to reopen the detention hearing (Doc. 8). For the reasons set forth below, the new
information proffered is insufficient and the defendant should remain detained pending trial.
BACKGROUND
On April 22, 2024, this Court authorized an arrest warrant and criminal complaint
charging the defendant with violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952(a)(3) and
1952(b)(1). Doc. 1. The defendant was arrested and made her initial appearance before this
The government moved for detention pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,
Section 3142(f)(2)(A) and (f)(2)(B). Id. The Court provisionally appointed counsel and set a
After appointing defense counsel, the Court held a detention hearing on April 26,
2024. Doc. 7, Minute Entry 04/26/2024. The parties proceeded by proffer. Id. The
government moved based upon a serious risk of flight pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(A)
and serous risk that the defendant would attempt to intimidate prospective witnesses pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B). Id. The defendant sought release. Id. The Court ordered the
assure the defendant’s appearance in court. Id. The Court did, however, indicate that it
would permit the defendant to reapply with a more detailed release plan, including a secured
bond. Id.
On May 10, 2024, the defendant filed the instant motion to reopen the detention
DISCUSSION
The Bail Reform Act allows the government to seek pretrial detention in cases in which
there is a “serious risk that [the defendant] will flee.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(A). In such
cases, a “court is instructed to order the pre-trial detention of a defendant if, after a hearing,
the judge ‘finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the
appearance of the person as required.’” United States v. Mattis, 963 F.3d 285, 290 (2d Cir.
2
Case 1:24-mj-01113-JJM Document 10 Filed 05/16/24 Page 3 of 6
2020) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1)). The Bail Reform Act also allows a court to reopen a
detention hearing only when “information exists that was not known to the movant at the
time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions
of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of [the defendant] as required.” 18
U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2).
The defendant now proffers that she has secured a place to live during the pendency
of the case. Doc. 8 ¶3. Defense counsel does not provide the address; instead, he indicates
that the defendant would reside with Leo Chen, a nephew of a family friend. Id. The
defendant proffers no other conditions, bond, or surety that would secure her appearance.
required to prove that the defendant had tangible plans to flee. The burden is that the
government show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant poses an actual risk
of flight. See United States v. Berrios–Berrios, 791 F.2d 246, 250 (2d Cir. 1986). Once it satisfies
this burden, the government must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that no
reasonably assure her presence in court. See United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 195 (2d Cir.
1987) (“The burden of proof is on the government to prove the absence of such conditions by
a preponderance of the evidence.”); United States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 405 (2d Cir.
1985).
The defendant’s proposed living arrangement is insufficient, and she still poses a
significant risk of flight. Beyond the illicit massage businesses in the Lockport, New York,
3
Case 1:24-mj-01113-JJM Document 10 Filed 05/16/24 Page 4 of 6
and Rochester, New York areas operated by the defendant, she has no ties to the Western
District of New York. Indeed, law enforcement’s investigation, which included the use of
court authorized electronic monitoring of the defendant’s vehicle, revealed that the defendant
frequently travelled to the New York City area. See, e.g., Doc. 1 ¶ 27. The majority of the
defendant’s family is in China, and even now that she is in the United States, the defendant
regularly associates with Chinese nationals who lack legal status in the United States. See
United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63, 76–77 (2d Cir. 2007) (because naturalized United States
citizen defendants had “maintained strong family ties to their native countries as well as
personal and professional ties” to other countries, “flight would impose no insurmountable
Most compelling, the defendant is a Chinese national with no legal status in the United
States. There is no extradition treaty currently in force between the United States and
People’s Republic of China. While her Chinese passport was seized during the execution of
a search warrant, the defendant is readily able to apply for and receive a new passport at any
Chinese consulate. Simply put, there is nothing the Court could do to stop the defendant, or
an associate, from requesting a new Chinese passport, either in the defendant’s true name or
in a false name. Once she has a new Chinese passport, the defendant could easily flee the
United States undetected. This is not a far-flung possibility. The Chinese consulate offers
May 16, 2024). In short, the availability of a place to live does not alter the actual and serious
4
Case 1:24-mj-01113-JJM Document 10 Filed 05/16/24 Page 5 of 6
detention. The weight of the evidence remains strong. The criminal complaint is supported
by the detailed affidavit of Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Justis W. Nelson,
which contains only a portion of the evidence developed during the investigation. See Doc.
1. The defendant is charged with essentially running a ring of illicit massage businesses that
employed multiple women to provide commercial sex acts, in violation of New York Penal
Law § 230.00 (prostitution). The defendant recruited both employees and commercial sex
buyers using online and newsprint advertisements. Her employees – many of whom also lack
legal status in the United States – lived at the spas and were dependent on the defendant for
transportation. During the execution of search warrants at both locations operated by the
defendant, law enforcement seized large sums of U.S. currency, electronic devices, containers
with hidden compartments that contained condoms, ledgers, and other evidence tying the
defendant to each location, and various evidence indicative of commercial sexual activity.
Where, “as here, the evidence against a defendant is strong, it follows that the defendant faces
an elevated risk of conviction (and of the attendant punishment), and therefore may present
an elevated risk of flight.” United States v. Zhang, 55 F.4th 141, 151 (2d Cir. 2022).
Notwithstanding her proposed living arrangement — the address for which has yet to be
provided or inspected by U.S. Probation — defendant’s bail proposal does not account for
her substantial actual risk of flight.1 She does not propose any electronic or GPS monitoring.
Nor does she offer any bond or surety as the Court clearly contemplated during the April 26,
1
For many of these reasons, U.S. Probation continues to recommend detention.
5
Case 1:24-mj-01113-JJM Document 10 Filed 05/16/24 Page 6 of 6
2024, detention hearing. See Doc. 7, Minute Entry 04/26/2024 (the Court ruling that it would
“allow defendant to reapply with a more detailed release plan including a secured bond”).
Moreover, any monitoring of the defendant’s cell phone and electronic devices is unrealistic
given she communicates in Mandarin and could easily do so in an effort to evade monitoring.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, as well as those stated at the April 26, 2024, detention
hearing, the Court should order that the defendant remain detained pending trial.
TRINI E. ROSS
United States Attorney
6
Case 1:24-mj-01113-JJM Document 12 Filed 05/20/24 Page 1 of 4
v. REPLY AFFIRMATION
IN SUPPORT ON MOTION
LINIAN SONG, TO REOPEN DETENION HEARING
Defendant.
___________________________________
1. I am an Assistant Federal Public Defender for the Western District of New York
and was assigned to represent the above-named defendant, Linian Song. I make this affirmation
2. Ms. Song has a place to live in Buffalo 1, no prior convictions, and a history of
complying with bond conditions. As stated at the detention hearing, she would submit to location
monitoring and home detention. She would comply with a condition that she actively seek and
maintain employment, and she has job skills outside of her previous massage business. Under
these circumstances, the government has not met its burden to show that Ms. Song poses an
actual risk of flight, and that no combination of conditions could reasonably assure her
appearance in court.
1
Counsel forgot to send Ms. Song’s address to the government and probation when the motion to
reopen the detention hearing was filed. That was an oversight. Upon reading the government’s
response, counsel sent that address. Should the government or probation wish to make further
argument based on that information, counsel has no objection.
Case 1:24-mj-01113-JJM Document 12 Filed 05/20/24 Page 2 of 4
3. While the government points to Ms. Song’s ties to China, those ties do not justify
keeping her in jail. The government claims that Ms. Song associates with Chinese nationals
lacking legal status and cites United States v Sabhnani for the proposition that maintaining strong
personal family ties to native countries and personal and professional ties to other countries mean
that flight would not be a hardship for defendants. Dkt. 10 at 4, citing United States v. Sabhnani,
4. But Sabhnani’s does not justify detention for two reasons. First, it addresses
radically different facts. There, the accused faced more serious charges (Guideline Range from
210-262 months) and had “vast financial resources and their personal and professional contacts
in numerous foreign countries.” Id. at 66-67. Those resources and ties included a $3 million
corporate bank accounts that had received $17+ million dollars in transfers from countries with
no extradition treaties, and businesses ties (manufacturing and sales markets) outside of the
5. The passage from which the government quotes explicitly linked the defendants’
7. And second, despite the defendants’ ties, the Sabhnani court still found that there
was a set of conditions that could reasonably assure the defendants’ appearance in court. Id. at
78. Given Ms. Song’s weaker ties and smaller resources, the Court should do the same here.
8. The government’s concern about Ms. Song obtaining a new passport also do not
merit keeping Ms. Song in jail. Dkt. 10 at 4. There is nothing to suggest that this is an actual risk
for Ms. Song. Presumably, Ms. Song could have done this the other time she faced criminal
charges; that case began before any travel restrictions related to the COVID pandemic. But Ms.
9. While the government argues that it does not need to show a tangible plan to flee,
the absence of such a plan confirms that conditions of release, not detention, are the least
restrictive means to address the government’s concerns. Dkt. 10 at 3. The court can order as a
condition of release that Ms. Song remain in the district and not try to obtain any new
documents. The government can obtain an order preventing Ms. Song from voluntarily departing
10. The government’s concern that Ms. Song may obtain a passport not in her name
illustrates the disconnect between their argument and the Bail Reform Act. Dkt 10 at 4. The
statute requires release if there are conditions that can reasonably assure Ms. Song’s appearance.
18 U.S.C. § 3142(b). By arguing that detention is necessary because Ms. Song—a woman with
no criminal history or history of flight—could theoretically disregard the Court’s order and
fraudulently obtain a Chinese passport, the government asks the Court to detain unless there are
conditions that can address every contingency and completely assure Ms. Song’s appearance.
11. Lastly, Ms. Song recognizes that this Court previously said it would likely require
a secured bond. Ms. Song respectfully requests that the Court reconsider that requirement. Ms.
Song cannot afford to post a monetary condition of release, as it would result in her detention. 18
U.S.C. § 3142(c)(B)(2).
Case 1:24-mj-01113-JJM Document 12 Filed 05/20/24 Page 4 of 4
WHEREFORE, Ms. Song respectfully requests that the Court grant her motion to
Respectfully submitted,