Eddy Alexandre is already attempting to circumvent his EminiFX bail restrictions.   

On May 12th, Alexandre was detained and released on bail, subject to strict conditions.   

The new attorney representing Alexandre made his appearance on May 19th. The notice of appearance was accompanied by a letter motion requesting that Alexandre’s bail conditions be changed.   

The claim is that Alexandre was unaware of the CFTC’s order at the time of his bail hearing.   

The need for Alexandre to fund security out of EminiFX investor cash is one of the bail conditions Alexandre wants removed. 

The insinuation is that Alexandre didn’t have any other sources of income than the $14.7 million he stole from EminiFX. 

Alexandre’s lawyer claims that if he flees, he will acquiesce to extradition from Haiti in lieu of private security.   

Any country in which Mr. Alexandre is detained during this case must consent to his extradition to the United States in order to face the charges listed in the complaint.    A

lexandre will remain incarcerated at home, but without the benefit of private security monitoring.   

The proposed amendment was reviewed with the DOJ before filing, according to the letter, which also states that “the government opposes this application.”   

Personally, I believe the lost millions linked to EminiFX are a major sticking point. Mr. Alexandre refuses to reveal any financial information about the lost money.   

Mr. Alexandre does not constitute a financial risk, and his bail conditions should not oblige him to give up his right to remain silent by making financial disclosures.   

That’s well and good, but Alexandre would have access to an undisclosed quantity of cryptocurrency stashed in a hidden place if he fled.   

Whether or not Alexandre consented to extradition, I’d have thought it would be enough to sway the balance in his favor.   

At the same time, despite the missing millions, the court has released Alexandre, so that’s a moot point for now. Is there much of a difference between having a guard at home and not having one?   

We’ll have to wait and see what the Department of Justice’s opposing brief contains. This is something I’m expecting to happen this week.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *