UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-20340-CR-WILLIAMS(s) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. 

MASPHAL KRY,

Defendant. 

________________________________/

MOTION FOR REVOCATION OF AN ORDER OF RELEASE

The United States of America, by and through its undersigned attorney, and respectfully 

requests this Court, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3145(a)(1), revoke the stayed 

order to release MASPHAL KRY (hereinafter, “Defendant” or “KRY”), and hold a de novo bond 

hearing. In support of the Motion relies upon the following: 

1. On November 3, 2022, a grand jury in the Southern District of Florida returned an

eight (8)-count superseding indictment against Defendant and seven (7) co-defendants. The 

indictment charges the defendants with serious wildlife trafficking activities over an extended 

period of time in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and 545. A conservative 

application of the provisions of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, utilizing the likely criminal history 

category of I, and the significant value of the illegal wildlife trafficked into the United States, 

results in an Adjusted Offense Level of approximately 28: Zone D (78-97 months). For these 

reasons, the United States respectfully submits that no conditions of release will reasonably ensure 

the appearance of the Defendant at further proceedings in this case, and requests that the Defendant 

be ordered detained pending trial. 

2. On November 17, 2022, federal agents executed an arrest warrant in the Eastern

District of New York (EDNY), arresting the Defendant as he arrived at John F. Kennedy 

International Airport. Defendant, a citizen of the Kingdom of Cambodia, was enroute to Panama 

City, Panama, and had no plans to remain in the United States. The United States proceeded by 

Case 1:22-cr-20340-KMW Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 1 of 10
2 

way of proffer and the Affidavit of Special Agent Dorothy Manera, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

See Attachment 1 – Affidavit of S/A Manera. The Magistrate Judge presiding over the detention 

hearing for the Defendant, in United States v. Masphal Kry, No. 22-MJ-1230 (MMH), initially 

ordered him detained pending trial as a risk of flight and ordered his removal to the Southern 

District of Florida. The Magistrate Judge gave Defendant leave to re-visit the bond issue. The U.S. 

Marshall’s Service advised that KRY was scheduled to be removed from the EDNY on December 

7, 2022. 

3. Thereafter, counsel on behalf of Defendant, retained by the Embassy of 

Cambodia, filed a “letter motion” in the EDNY seeking to revisit the detention order and 

suggesting that representations made by the Ambassador of Cambodia sufficed to reasonably 

assure Defendant’s appearance at all required hearings and the trial. On December 5, 2022, 

Defendant proceeded to a renewed detention hearing in the EDNY. During the hearing, the 

government renewed its request for detention, citing KRY’s lack of any significant contact with 

the United States, his position as a foreign government official whose crimes involved allegations 

of corruption, the strength of the government’s evidence, and the substantial sentence Defendant 

faces under the Sentencing Commission Guidelines. 

4. The government proceeded by proffer and the only sworn testimony taken was done 

telephonically by a surety proposed by the defense. No member of the Cambodian Embassy 

appeared before the Court. However, a previously filed document signed and sealed by the 

Ambassador of Cambodia had been filed on KRY’s behalf. Letter Motion, EDNY Case No. 22-

MJ-1230 (MMH), Docket Entry 10-1. 

5. The Magistrate Judge concluded that a bond was appropriate, and Defendant was 

ordered released on a $75,000.00 personal surety bond with the restriction that he reside at the 

Cambodian Embassy in Washington, D.C., that he be subject to GPS monitoring and compliance 

visits by PTS and other government agencies while at the Embassy, and that he attend all hearings 

in the SDFL as ordered by the District Court. The Magistrate Judge also incorporated the 

Case 1:22-cr-20340-KMW Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 2 of 10
3 

representations in Docket Entry 10-1 into the Release Order. See Attachment 2 - Release Order 

and Letter. The bond as noted thereon, was stayed until 5:00 pm on December 6, 2022, and if 

the government appealed, both the bond and the previously entered removal order stayed pending 

resolution of the appeal by this Honorable Court. 

6. At this time, the government does not have transcripts of the detention hearing, 

however, it has been ordered and the United States will supplement the record with the transcripts 

once they are received.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Under the Bail Reform Act, Title 18, United States Code, Section 3141, et seq., federal 

courts are empowered to order a defendant’s detention upon a determination that the defendant is 

either a danger to the community or a risk of flight. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). A finding of risk 

of flight must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Quartermaine, 

913 F.2d 910, 917 (11th Cir. 1990). 

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a)(1) provides that, “[i]f a person is ordered released by a magistrate 

judge,” “the attorney for the Government may file, with the court having original jurisdiction of 

the offense, a motion for revocation of the order or amendment of the conditions of release.” The 

District Court judges review the United States’ detention request de novo. United States v. Torres, 

86 F.3d 1029 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. King, 849 F. 2d 485, 489-91 (11th Cir. 1988); 

United States v. Hurtado, 779 F.2d 1467, 1471-1472 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Megahed

519 F. Supp. 2d. 1236, 1241 (M.D. Fla. 2007); see also United States v. Hurtado, 779 F.2d 1467, 

1471-1472 (11th Cir.1985). “Review by the district court contemplates an independent 

consideration of all facts properly before it.” Megahed, 519 F. Supp. 2d. at 1241. The review of 

the record must be de novo, but a de novo hearing is not required. United States v. Gaviria, 828 

F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir. 1987). See also, United States v. King, 849 F.2d 485, 490-91 (11th Cir. 

1988) (“if the district court concludes that the additional evidence does not affect the validity of 

Case 1:22-cr-20340-KMW Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 3 of 10
4 

the magistrate's findings and conclusions, the court may state the reasons therefor and then 

explicitly adopt the magistrate's pretrial detention order.”). 

LEGAL ANALYSIS AND ARGUMENT

The Court should order that the Defendant be held without bond pending the trial of this 

matter because “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance 

of the [Defendant] as required.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). The statutory factors enumerated at 18 

U.S.C. § 3142(g) strongly support this conclusion. 

First, looking to the nature of the offense, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Defendant is charged 

with conspiring to illegally import into the United States large numbers of illegally harvested NonHuman Primates (NHPs), over an extended period of time utilizing fraudulent paperwork produced 

by the same government agency employing both he and co-defendant KEO. This is a serious 

wildlife offense, contravening not only the laws of Cambodia and the United States, but also the 

framework established under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of 

Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), to which more than 180 countries are parties. In addition, the 

circumstances of this offense are particularly troubling when deciding whether the Defendant 

poses a risk of non-appearance it is instructive to note in the Overt Acts that he went so far as to 

suggest means to more efficiently promote the “smuggling” activities. 

Turning to the weight of the evidence, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(2), the weight of the evidence 

that the Defendant conspired to traffic the NHPs is very strong. The Defendant was captured on 

video delivering the illegally captured NHPs to the putative “breeding facility” where they were 

“laundered” through the system, crated, and shipped, all under the cover of fraudulent paperwork. 

He is readily identifiable in the electronic evidence. Moreover, emails discussing the criminal 

activity feature him prominently under his assumed alias and link him directly to coordination of 

the illegal conduct and accepting of illicit payments for the monkey laundering activities. Thus, 

the weight of the evidence, taken in light of the significant period of incarceration he faces under 

the Sentencing Guidelines, weighs strongly in favor of detention. 

Case 1:22-cr-20340-KMW Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 4 of 10
5 

Next, the Defendant’s history and characteristics, id. § 3142(g)(3), also show that he poses 

a very real risk of non-appearance. The Defendant’s connections to a GOC Department, and to a 

more highly placed co-defendant suggest that despite the sequestration of his passport, he may 

enjoy support within his government. New travel documents and assistance in leaving the United 

States are serious concern. In a cautionary tale, that has happened before with defendants who 

enjoyed governmental connections. See Attachment 3 - NYT Article. His lack of ties to this 

District is self-evident. 

At a detention hearing, the burden rests at all times with the Government to prove, by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is a risk of flight. United States v. Quartermaine, 

913 F.2d 910, 916 (11th Cir. 1990); United States v. King, 849 F.2d 485, 488 (11th Cir. 1988)). 

 The Magistrate Court initially ruled that the Defendant posed a risk of flight but altered her 

position upon the proffering of a potential surety and the letter contain representations from the 

Ambassador of Cambodia to the United States of America. Neither singly, nor taken collectively, 

do they warrant the release of Defendant pending trial of this matter. The Magistrate Judge erred 

in concluding that the bond imposed would reasonably assure Defendant’s appearance at future 

court proceedings. The government now requests this Honorable Court review the record and 

revoke the release order for Defendant. In order to consider the appropriateness of the proposed 

conditions of bond, the United States will review the two elements relied upon by the Magistrate 

Judge: 

A. The Proposed Surety. 

The surety proffered in this matter is Ms. Um, a California resident related solely through 

marriage to the Defendant. Curiously, KRY failed to even mention her when originally interviewed 

by Pre-Trial Services. When interviewed by the government she revealed that she co-owned a 

donut shop and her assets consisted of a business account holding about $14,000 and a personal 

account well below that. She also advised that she had $400,000 in equity in a piece of property. 

That claim was subsequently corrected – downgrading the equity to $200,000, shared among at 

Case 1:22-cr-20340-KMW Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 5 of 10
6 

least three individuals. She also asserted that KRY had visited her home and stayed therein twice 

over the past 5 years, but incorrectly claimed the most recent visit lasted 2-3 weeks. Government 

travel records refute her claim since KRY was not in the United States for such a lengthy stay. 

KRY through counsel later asserted the stay was 5 days. 

The Court called Ms. Um, placed her under oath and asked questions which substantially 

repeated the foregoing information. Ms. Um also stated she did not maintain direct contact with 

Defendant but that she spoke to other family members in Cambodia by telephone. She is not a 

direct blood relative of Defendant: KRY is married to Ms. Um’s husband sister. 

No serious suggestion was made that she could exert influence or supervision from several 

thousand miles away over a distant relative she has seen only twice since 2018, and even taking 

the pandemic into account, someone with she maintained little if any remote social contact over 

the same period.

Despite the foregoing, the Magistrate accepted Ms. Um as the sole surety, despite her 

apparent lack of assets, insignificant connection to Defendant, and her remoteness from any 

possibility of direct influence on Defendant and required the posting of a personal surety bond of 

a mere $75,000. 

B. The Representations by the Ambassador of Cambodia. 

It is undisputed that Defendant is a national of Cambodia with no ties to the Southern 

District of Florida. According to the Pre-Trial Services (PTS) Report, he resides in Phnom Penh, 

Cambodia with his wife and three children. While his parents are deceased, he has six siblings, 

also Cambodian residents. His employment, close family, home, connections, and financial ties

are all to Cambodia. The charges pending actually allege corruption on the part of KRY and his 

co-defendant Omaliss Keo. 

Despite that, by letter dated November 28, 2022, the Ambassador of the Kingdom of 

Cambodia to the United States sought to ensure KRY’s release on bond by proposing a series of 

assurances regarding conditions that the Embassy was prepared to adopt with respect to KRY. See 

Case 1:22-cr-20340-KMW Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 6 of 10
7 

Attachment 2 – Release Order and Letter. These included an offer to lodge KRY at the Washington 

Embassy grounds, to deny KRY permission to leave those grounds except with specific Court or 

PTS authorization, acceptance of GPS monitoring of KRY while on the grounds, and a waiver of 

the immunities customarily enjoyed by Embassy grounds to allow entry by federal authorities to 

carry out necessary orders of the Court. Along with the foregoing, the Ambassador also undertook 

to insure KRY would appear as necessary at all proceedings and not interpose any immunity claims 

in connection with efforts to secure his surrender to the Court or its designated agents. These 

assurances were accompanied by the Ambassador’s assurance that the commitments were 

irrevocable.

While the United States appreciates the efforts of the GOC to facilitate proceedings in this 

matter, these assurances are both illusory and impracticable.

Embassy premises are considered inviolable under international law, both by treaty and 

customary international law. See Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, done at Vienna on 

April 18, 1961, entered into force April 24, 1964, U.N. Treaty Series, vol. 500, p. 95. While a head 

of mission, such as the Ambassador in the present matter, may authorize entry otherwise precluded 

by the terms of the Convention, hosts countries, for persuasive policy reasons, are generally loath 

to do so. 

KRY of course, was not at the time of his offense or while on travel through New York, 

entitled to diplomatic status or protectionsglobally since the credentials of a diplomat must be 

presented and accepted by the host country – a development unlikely to arise herein. 

On the practical side, KRY would be required to travel on multiple occasions to Miami and 

reside in Miami for periods of time including the trial of this matter. During that period of time, 

he would be out of any effective control of the GOC. While the Release Order limits his travel to 

the Districts necessary to perform case-related travel, once embarked on those trips, KRY would 

Case 1:22-cr-20340-KMW Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 7 of 10
8 

effectively be beyond the control of the Embassy and free to flee the United States.1 

A more serious concern is the stated irrevocability of the undertakings by the Ambassador. 

He, of course, serves subject to the direction of his government. While the United States does not 

question the good faith of the current undertakings, they are subject to the future decisions of the 

GOC – including the possibility that the decision to waive the protections attached to Embassy 

premises may be revoked by that government.2

Sovereigns can be relied upon to act in their perceived best interests. Should the policy or 

interests of the GOC be altered, and Defendant be assisted in any way by diplomatic personnel to 

flee, there is little recourse for the United States or this Court. The maximum “sanction” in such a 

circumstance would be a possible declaration that the diplomat at issue was persona non grata, 

requiring the diplomat to depart the United States. Since any such assistance would likely be at the 

direction of eh GOC, the “recall” of one of its diplomats would be of minimal effect.

CONCLUSION

Neither the minimal connections and nominal bond brought to this issue by the proposed 

surety, nor the offer of accommodations and oversight in Washington by the Embassy of Cambodia 

provide reasonable assurances that Defendant will appear as required at Court proceedings. 

Defendant KRY has significant incentive to flee the jurisdiction if the opportunity is presented, 

and the United States has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that no combination 

of conditions is likely to ameliorate that risk. The United States respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court revoke the stayed order of release, and order Defendant held without bond 

pending trial and direct his removal to the Southern District of Florida as provided by the currently 

1 A suggestion was made, and rejected by the Magistrate Judge at the December 5 detention 

hearing that two retired NYPD officers would serve as private guards to convey KRY to the 

Embassy location in Washington, D.C. While not doubting the professional abilities of those 

former officers they would have no authority or power beyond any other private citizen and their 

oversight of no legal force. 

2 The United States Attorney’s Office is not now suggesting what position the United States, and its competent 

Departments and Agencies might take with respect to an effort by the GOC to revoke the “irrevocable,” but noting 

for the Court’s consideration that such an effort would involve foreign policy decisions likely non-justiciable and 

inevitably interfere with the timely resolution of the pending case. 

Case 1:22-cr-20340-KMW Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 8 of 10
9 

stayed Order of Removal. Alternatively, the United States would request the Court order the 

transfer of the Defendant so he may be present for a de novo bond hearing before the Court. A 

proposed Order granting the Government’s Motion to Revoke Release Order is attached hereto.

Respectfully submitted,

JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

 By: /s/ Thomas Watts-FitzGerald

Assistant U. S. Attorney 

Florida Bar No. 0273538 

99 N.E. 4th Street 

Miami, FL 33132 

(305) 961- 9413 Office 

(305) 536- 4651 Facsimile 

 

Certificate of Service

 I certify that on December 6, 2022, the foregoing Motion To Revoke Release Order was 

electronically filed via CM/ECF to effect service on all parties of record to the instant 

proceeding. Additionally, service has been made to the following email addresses of counsel 

who appeared for Defendant Masphal Kry at the proceedings in the Eastern District of New 

York: 

Dakota L. Kann; dkann@akingump.com 

Ian P. McGinley; imcginley@akingump.com 

Mark J. MacDougall; mmacdougall@akingump.com 

 

 

 By: /s/ Thomas Watts-FitzGerald

Assistant U. S. Attorney

Case 1:22-cr-20340-KMW Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 9 of 10
10 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-20340-CR-WILLIAMS(s) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. 

MASPHAL KRY,

 Defendant. 

________________________________/

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Government’s Motion to Revoke Release Order, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant be temporarily remanded into the custody 

of the Bureau of Prisons, and the Defendant be transported by the United States Marshal Service 

to the Southern District of Florida, for the purpose of conducting a de novo bond hearing. 

DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at Miami, Florida, this ____ day of December 2022. 

_____________________________________ 

HONORABLE KATHLEEN M. WILLIAMS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cr-20340-KMW Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2022 Page 10 of 10