IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MEDFORD DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, No. 1:15-cr-00172-AA-1 

v. 

ORDER 

EMMANUEL OLUWATOSIN KAZEEM, 

et al. 

Defendants. 

PANNER, J. 

Defendant Emmanuel Oluwatosin Kazeem has filed a renewed 

Motion for Release from Custody (#72). I held a detention hearing 

on July 31, 2015 (#81). I DENY Defendant's motion. 

Legal Standard 

The Bail Reform Act of 1984 "requires the release of a person 

facing trial under the least restrictive condition or combination 

of conditions that will reasonably assure the appearance of the 

person as required and the safety of the community." United States 

v. Gerbo, 948 F.2d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 1991); 18 U.S.C. § 

3142 (c) (1) (B); United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1405 (9th 

Cir. 1985). Only in rare circumstances should release be denied, 

! 

and doubts regarding·the propriety of release should be resolved in 

PAGE 1 - ORDER 

Case 1:15-cr-00172-AA Document 82 Filed 08/03/15 Page 1 of 7
the defendant's favor. Motamedi, 767 F.2d at 1405; United States 

v. Townsend, 897 F.2d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Section 3142(f) requires the court to hold a detention hearing 

if the defendant poses a flight risk or is a danger to the 

community. The government bears the burden of showing by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the defendant poses a flight 

risk, and by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant poses 

a danger to the community. Gerbo, 948 F.2d at 1121. 

Under§ 3142(g), certain factors must be considered in 

determining whether there are conditions of release that will 

reasonably assure the appearance of the person and the safety of 

the community. Gerbo, 948 F.2d at 1121. Those factors include: 

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged; (2) the 

weight of the evidence against the defendant; (3) the history and 

characteristics of the defendant; and (4) the nature and 

seriousness of any danger to persons of the community if the 

defendant is released. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). When considering 

these factors, the evidence against the defendant is the least 

important. Gerbo, 948 F.2d, at 1121. 

Under§ 3142(e), if the court determines that no condition or 

combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of 

the person, the defendant must be detained. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). 

The court may reopen a detention hearing at any time prior to 

trial if: 

the judicial officer finds that information 

exists that was not known to the movant at the 

time of the hearing that has a material bearing 

on the issue whether there are conditions of 

PAGE 2 - ORDER 

Case 1:15-cr-00172-AA Document 82 Filed 08/03/15 Page 2 of 7
release that will reasonably assure the 

appearance of such person as required and the 

safety of any other person and the community. 

18 U.S.C. § 3142 (f) (2) (B). 

Background 

On May 7, 2015, Defendant and four other individuals were 

charged by indictment with twenty-seven counts of conspiracy to 

commit mail and wire fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, and aggravated 

identity theft. Defendant is alleged to have been involved in a 

complex and sophisticated identity theft scheme involving the 

identities of over 125,000 people for the purpose of obtaining 

fraudulent tax refunds from the IRS and the Oregon Department o£ 

Revenue. 

Defendant is a citizen of both the United States and Nigeria 

and maintains a residence in Bowie, Maryland. On May 13, 2015, 

federal agents executed a search warrant at Defendant's house. 

Defendant was not at home, but agents spoke to his roommate and 

left copies of the warrant. On May 21, 2015, Defendant selfsurrendered in Medford, Oregon. On May 22, 2015, Defendant made 

his initial appearance and the Court ordered him detained. 

Magistrate Judge Clarke held a detention hearing on June 4, 2015, 

at which he affirmed the earlier detention order. Defendant 

subsequently retained new counsel and brought this motion seeking 

pretrial release based on new information. 

Discussion 

I. Defendant Presents a Serious Flight Risk 

Defendant contends that he does not pose a serious flight risk 

PAGE 3 - ORDER 

Case 1:15-cr-00172-AA Document 82 Filed 08/03/15 Page 3 of 7
based on (1) his self-surrender in Medford, Oregon; (2) the seizure 

of his Nigerian and United States passports by federal agents; and 

(3) his strong ties to Bowie, Maryland. 

In assessing the§ 3142(g) factors, I turn first to the nature 

and circumstances of the charged offenses. Defendant is charged 

with multiple counts of fraud, conspiracy, and identity theft. 

Given the complexity and sophistication of the alleged scheme, I 

conclude that this factor weighs against Defendant's release. In 

particular, I note that the allegations regarding identity theft 

are particularly concerning given the possibility that Defendant 

might use a false or stolen identity and assets to flee the United 

States. 

I turn next to the weight of the evidence against Defendant. 

The evidence against Defendant is substantial. Although, as noted, 

this factor is the least important, it does weigh against 

Defendant. 

Turning then to the history and characteristics of Defendant, 

I find that this factor weighs strongly against Defendant. At the 

detention hearing, the government produced a considerable amount of 

evidence demonstrating a pervasive pattern of fraud in Defendant's 

conduct over at least the last five years. The government 

presented evidence that Defendant obtained his United States 

citizenship by means of a fraudulent marriage to a citizen and that 

denaturalization proceedings have been commenced against him. The 

government also presented evidence that, despite his allegedly 

fraudulent marriage and his romantic connections to at least two 

PAGE 4 - ORDER 

Case 1:15-cr-00172-AA Document 82 Filed 08/03/15 Page 4 of 7
women in Maryland, Defendant is married to a woman in Nigeria and 

possibly also married to another woman in the United Kingdom. 

The government also produced evidence that Defendant has been 

investing at least some of the proceeds of the alleged tax fraud 

scheme in Nigeria. These investments apparently include 

substantial property in Lagos, Nigeria, where Defendant intended to 

construct a high-end hotel. 

It also appears that, despite owning a substantial house in 

Bowie, Maryland, and incurring considerable expenses, Defendant is 

without a legitimate source of income. Defendant's tax returns for 

the last several years have represented that he worked for a 

company in Maryland which has been defunct for the entire time of 

Defendant's purported employment with them. 

The net effect of these revelations is to undermine the 

Court's confidence in Defendant's connections to Bowie, Maryland 

and the United States. The government's evidence of Defendant's 

investments in Nigeria, as well as the presence of Defendant's 

parents and at least one of his putative wives, suggest that 

Defendant has correspondingly strong connections to his native 

country. 

Although Defendant's laudable decision to travel to Medford 

and surrender to the marshals does weigh in his favor, I must 

conclude that the nature and characteristics of Defendant indicate 

a serious risk of flight. 

With regard to the final factor, I conclude that Defendant 

does not pose a serious danger to the community. 

PAGE 5 - ORDER 

Case 1:15-cr-00172-AA Document 82 Filed 08/03/15 Page 5 of 7
I conclude that the government has demonstrated by a 

preponderance of the evidence that Defendant presents a serious 

risk of flight. 

II. No Condition or Combination of Conditions Will Reasonably 

Assure Defendant's Subsequent Appearance 

Defendant also argues that the following new circumstances 

justify pretrial release: (1) two individuals have volunteered to 

act as third-party custodians of Defendant during his pretrial 

release; (2) a third individual, Taofiki Kolapo, has offered to 

deed his home as security for Defendant's subsequent appearance; 

(3) Defendant's parents have offered to provide a $25,000 bond for 

his release; (4) Defendant will submit to strict house arrest with 

electronic monitoring; (5) Defendant will report daily to pretrial 

services in Washington, D.C.; (6) Defendant will agree not to 

travel within 100 yards of the Nigerian Embassy; and (7) Defendant 

will sign a waiver of extradition. 

The effectiveness of release conditions depends on the 

Defendant's good faith compliance. United States v. Hir, 517 F.3d 

1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2008). If the conditions can be too easily 

circumvented or manipulated, they are not effective. Id. In this 

case, the evidence of pervasive fraQd in Defendant's conduct and 

dealings over the last several years undermines the Court's 

confidence in Defendant's good faith compliance with any condition 

or combination of conditions that might be imposed. Defendant's 

technical sophistication and alleged facility with false identities 

also suggests that he might circumvent the proposed conditions with 

PAGE 6 - ORDER 

Case 1:15-cr-00172-AA Document 82 Filed 08/03/15 Page 6 of 7
... 

relative ease. 

Nor are the proposed conditions otherwise free of problems. 

Mr. Kolapo's offer to stake his house as security for Defendant's 

release is clouded by the government's discovery of numerous 

judgments and liens against Mr. Kolapo, as well as some apparently 

serious irregularities in Mr. Kolapo's tax returns. Additionally, 

Defendant's suggestion that he might sign a waiver of extradition 

is undermined by grave doubts about the enforceability of such a 

waiver. See United States v. Wei Seng Phua, No. 2:14-CR-00249-APGPAL, 2014 WL 4104128 (D. Nev. Aug. 19, 2014) (noting that waivers of 

extradition are potentially unenforceable). 

I conclude, therefore, that no condition or combination of 

conditions will reasonably assure Defendant's subsequent 

appearance. 

Conclusion 

The government has demonstrated by a preponderance of the 

evidence that Defendant presents a serious risk of flight and that 

no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure 

his subsequent appearance. Accordingly, Defendant's renewed Motion 

for Release from Custody (#72) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this ~ day of 

PAGE 7 - ORDER 

Au~=- ~ OWEN ~~~/ M. 0 PANNER 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:15-cr-00172-AA Document 82 Filed 08/03/15 Page 7 of 7