Rubashkin will remain behind bars

Government asserts that Rubashkin aided flight of Agriprocessors co-worker to Israel

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Linda R. Reade has ordered that the Iowa meatpacking manager found guilty on 86 counts of fraud and money laundering will remain behind bars.

Sholom M. Rubashkin, who served as the day-to-day manager at Agriprocessors in Postville and is the son of company founder A. Aaron Rubashkin, will remain in the custody of U.S. Marshals until he is sentenced on the earlier conviction. It is unknown if Rubashkin, who recently had 72 immigration-related offenses against him dismissed, will remain in a county facility or will be moved to a federal prison. An exact sentencing date has not yet been established, and, since the process requires extensive reports for judicial review, the date could be several weeks from now.

In the bail hearing on Wednesday, the Rubashkin defense team pointed to the man’s strong community and family ties in Postville as well as his record of good behavior while on release pending trial. Prosecutors, on the other hand, told the court that the fact that Rubashkin was facing a sentence of possibly several hundred years in prison that the situation had changed significantly.

In addition, the prosecution called Mike Fischels, a special agent who has long been assigned to the Agriprocessors case, to testify about an overseas telephone conversation he had with a company supervisor still wanted by the government.

Fischels testified that he spoke with co-defendant Hosam Amara on the telephone about Amara’s flight from the U.S. to Israel. Amara indicated to Fischels that [Rubashkin] told him to leave the U.S. and return to Israel in order to remove himself from the situation facing Agriprocessors.

The government also presented a copy of a check and bank documents that suggest Rubashkin provided financial assistance to Amara around the time that he fled the U.S.

The court finds that the government’s evidence for detention is compelling.
Defendant’s actions prior to and during the pendency of the instant action, when coupled with the powerful incentive to flee due to the jury’s return of the Verdicts, demonstrates that Defendant poses a flight risk. The court notes that, in the Detention Order, it previously found that Defendant posed a flight risk.

The court acknowledges the overwhelming support that Defendant’s community has provided during the trial and the instant proceeding. The court also recognizes that Defendant took great pains to comply with the terms of his pretrial release. The court agrees that Defendant has shown he is committed to his family and to his community. Nevertheless, the court finds that this evidence does not rise to the “clear and convincing” level necessary to show that he is “not likely to flee [. . .] if released under [§] 3142(b) or(c).” 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a). Accordingly, the court shall grant the Motion.

Rubashkin’s defense team has pledged to appeal the fraud and money laundering convictions. It is unknown at this time, however, if they will also appeal this detention order.