USA v. Fadanelli

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:24-cr-10352-JEK
)
REBECCA FADANELLI, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR REVOCATION OF DETENTION ORDER
KOBICK, J.
Defendant Rebecca Fadanelli is charged in an eight-count indictment with importing
merchandise contrary to law, unlawfully selling or dispensing counterfeit drugs, and unlawfully
selling or dispensing counterfeit devices. The indictment alleges that Fadanelli, an unlicensed
aesthetician who ran a business called Skin Beaute Med Spa, injected clients with counterfeit
Botox, a Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved prescription drug, and counterfeit
Restylane, an FDA approved prescription dermal filler. At Fadanelli’s initial appearance in
November 2024, Magistrate Judge Hennessy ordered her released pending trial, subject to a
number of conditions. Among those conditions were prohibitions against (1) contacting any person
who is or may be a victim or witness in the investigation or prosecution; (2) engaging in
employment that includes any injection cosmetic procedures; and (3) purchasing, possessing,
selling, dispensing, or administering Botox or dermal filler products that require a prescription.
In October 2025, Judge Hennessy held a show cause hearing regarding Fadanelli’s alleged
noncompliance with these conditions. After considering the evidence submitted at the hearing,
Judge Hennessy concluded that Fadanelli violated those conditions of pretrial release by injecting
Case 1:24-cr-10352-JEK Document 124 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 10

2
a client with either Botox or Sculptra, a dermal filler, in May 2025. Concluding that revocation of
Fadanelli’s pretrial release was warranted due to the danger to the community posed by Fadanelli’s
conduct and the likelihood that Fadanelli would not abide by any condition or combination of
conditions of release, Judge Hennessy ordered her detained the next day. When Fadanelli failed to
timely report to the U.S. Marshals Service to begin detention, Judge Hennessy issued an arrest
warrant, which was not ultimately executed because Fadanelli reported to the U.S. Marshal the
following Monday.
Pending before this Court is Fadanelli’s motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b) to review and
revoke Judge Hennessy’s detention order and place her on more restrictive conditions of pretrial
release. For the reasons that follow, Fadanelli’s motion will be denied without prejudice and the
detention order will remain in effect. Pretrial detention is warranted at this time because of
Fadanelli’s failure to abide by important conditions of her pretrial release, because Fadanelli is not
likely to abide by the new conditions of release over the period of time she proposes, and because
the combination of conditions of release she proposes would not, in light of the factors set forth in
18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), assure the safety of the community. Nevertheless, the parties are instructed
to confer on whether other conditions of release may, for a shorter period of time than that
requested by Fadanelli, reasonably assure the safety of the community while also enabling
Fadanelli to arrange for the long-term care of her five-year-old son.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are drawn from the indictment, the transcript of the detention hearing,
and the government’s evidentiary submissions. See United States v. O’Brien, 895 F.2d 810, 815
(1st Cir. 1990).
Case 1:24-cr-10352-JEK Document 124 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 10

3
The indictment alleges that Fadanelli imported counterfeit prescription drugs and medical
devices, including counterfeit Botox, Sculptra, Restylane, and Juvederm, on at least four occasions
between March 2021 and November 2024. ECF 19, ¶¶ 16, 21, 33. On October 26, 2023, for
example, Fadanelli returned to the United States from Brazil carrying counterfeit Sculptra. Id. ¶ 22.
Between November 2023 and March 2024, Fadanelli received counterfeit Botox, Sculptra, and
Juvederm from China. Id. ¶ 23. After law enforcement detained a parcel in December 2023,
Fadanelli used a different delivery address for the counterfeit shipments. Id. ¶¶ 24-25. Fadanelli
never purchased authentic prescription drugs or devices from Allergan or Galderma, the
manufacturers of Botox, Sculptra, Restylane, and Juvederm. Id. ¶¶ 10-11, 27.
Fadanelli allegedly sold and dispensed the counterfeit prescription drugs and devices on
clients within the same period. Id. ¶¶ 20, 28, 35, 37. She owned and operated Skin Beaute, Inc.,
doing business as Skin Beaute Med Spa, with locations in Randolph and South Easton,
Massachusetts. Id. ¶ 2. The Skin Beaute Med Spa offered spa services and cosmetic procedures to
clients. Id. ¶ 3. From 2021 to 2024, Fadanelli allegedly performed approximately 1,631 Botox
injection procedures and approximately 1,085 filler injection procedures using counterfeit
prescription drugs and devices. Id. ¶ 28. Fadanelli was not licensed to perform injections and
falsely identified to clients the substances she was injecting. Id. ¶¶ 4, 17, 19.
On October 31, 2024, a criminal complaint and arrest warrant were issued. ECF 3, 4.
Fadanelli was arrested on November 1, 2024. At her initial appearance that day, Magistrate Judge
Hennessy, with the government’s agreement, released Fadanelli on conditions of pretrial release.
ECF 9, 11 (order setting conditions of release). As relevant here, three of the conditions provided:
(1) “[A]void all contact, directly or indirectly, with any person who is or may be a
victim or witness in the investigation or prosecution including: any customer
[for whom] you have allegedly provided Botox or other injectables or devices.
No contact with current employees about this case or charges.”
Case 1:24-cr-10352-JEK Document 124 Filed 12/23/25 Page 3 of 10

4
(2) “Defendant is prohibited from engaging in employment that would include any
injection cosmetic procedures. Do not inject counterfeit products and do not
hire a nurse (or other medical professional) to inject counterfeit products into
any person.”
(3) “Do not purchase, possess, sell, dispense, administer or advertise products for
Botox, Sculptra, Juvederm or other products that require a prescription, and you
are not to be involved in administering those products by injection or
otherwise.”
ECF 11, at 2-3.
On November 20, 2024, Fadanelli was charged by indictment with four counts of importing
merchandise into the United States contrary to law, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 545 and 2; two counts of selling or dispensing counterfeit drugs, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 331(i)(3) and 333(b)(8); and two counts of selling or dispensing counterfeit devices, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(fff)(3) and 333(b)(8). ECF 19. A year later, on October 21, 2025,
U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services filed a petition alleging that Fadanelli had violated conditions
of her pretrial release. ECF 115, at 5:2-4. Specifically, the petition alleged that, in September 2025,
the FDA received a complaint that a victim had received injections from Fadanelli’s Skin Beaute
Med Spa. Id. at 6:23-7:8. The complaint came from the victim reporting website that the FDA
created when the case was charged. Id. at 6:16-22. The victim, a previous client of Fadanelli’s,
reported that she received injections from Fadanelli at Fadanelli’s home in May 2025 and paid her
using CashApp. Id. at 7:6-8:13.
The Court held a show cause hearing on October 30, 2025. ECF 106. At the hearing, Judge
Hennessy found by clear and convincing evidence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(1)(B), that
Fadanelli violated the conditions that prohibited her from engaging in employment related to
injection cosmetic procedures and from administering prohibited products by injection. ECF 115,
Case 1:24-cr-10352-JEK Document 124 Filed 12/23/25 Page 4 of 10

5
at 36:1-37:6.1 He then found under 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(2)(A) that Fadanelli’s violations posed a
concern for the safety of the community, and under 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(2)(B) that Fadanelli was
unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release. ECF 115, at 37:7-38:18.
So that Fadanelli would have time to arrange for the care of her son, Judge Hennessy
ordered her to surrender to the U.S. Marshals Service at the Boston courthouse the following day,
on Friday, October 31, 2025 by 2:00 p.m. Id. at 38:19-39:1, 40:6-8. He warned Fadanelli that if
she did not surrender at that prescribed time, a warrant would issue for her arrest. Id. at 40:6-8.
Fadanelli failed to surrender at the time ordered by the Court, and an arrest warrant was issued for
her arrest. She surrendered to the U.S. Marshal three days later, on Monday, November 3, 2025,
before the warrant was executed.
On December 5, 2025, Fadanelli filed a motion to revoke Judge Hennessy’s detention
order, requesting that she instead be placed on pretrial release under additional proposed
conditions, or alternatively, requesting at least 30 days of release to make further arrangements for
the care of her son. ECF 114. After the government opposed that motion, the Court held a hearing
and took the motion under advisement. ECF 122, 123.
DISCUSSION
A motion for district court review of a magistrate judge’s order of pretrial detention “shall
be determined promptly.” 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). This Court conducts “de novo review of the
contested order.” United States v. Tortora, 922 F.2d 880, 883 n.4 (1st Cir. 1990).
The statute that governs revocation of release orders, 18 U.S.C. § 3148, provides that a
judicial officer shall revoke a previous release order “if, after a hearing, the judicial officer (1) finds
1 Defense counsel conceded that Fadanelli violated the condition prohibiting contact with
witnesses. ECF 115, at 13:19-21, 30:19-21.
Case 1:24-cr-10352-JEK Document 124 Filed 12/23/25 Page 5 of 10

6
that there is – (A) probable cause to believe that the person has committed a Federal, State, or local
crime while on release; or (B) clear and convincing evidence that the person has violated any other
condition of release; and (2) finds that – (A) based on the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)],
there is no condition or combination of conditions of release that will assure that the person will
not flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community; or (B) the person is
unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b);
see United States v. Pasciuti, 958 F.2d 361, at *3 (1st Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Fadanelli does not
now challenge Judge Hennessy’s finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that she violated
conditions of pretrial release by injecting a former client in May 2025 with Botox or dermal fillers.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(1)(B). Instead, she disputes his conclusions that no combination of
conditions of release will assure the safety of others and, alternatively, that she is unlikely to abide
by any combination of conditions of release. See id. § 3148(b)(2).
To justify revocation of a release order and imposition of detention under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3148(b)(2)(B), the government bears the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that a defendant will not abide by any conditions of release. See United States v. Aron, 904 F.2d
221, 224 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Gotti, 794 F.2d 773, 778-79 (2d Cir. 1986). Alternatively,
under 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(2)(A), the government bears the burden to prove, by clear and
convincing evidence, that based on the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), no condition or
combination of conditions of release will assure the safety of any other person or the community.
See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 752 (1987) (addressing similar provision in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(f)); United States v. Couture, No. 21-cr-10172-NMG, 2022 WL 483830, at *4 (D. Mass.
Feb. 11, 2022) (applying the clear and convincing evidence standard to a request for revocation
under both 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(f) and 3148(b)(2)(A)). The factors in Section 3142(g) require the
Case 1:24-cr-10352-JEK Document 124 Filed 12/23/25 Page 6 of 10

7
Court to take into account “(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 the danger to any person or the community that would
be posed by the [defendant’s] release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
On de novo review, Judge Hennessy’s conclusion that Fadanelli will not abide by any
condition or combination of conditions of pretrial release is supported by the record. Fadanelli
violated the three aforementioned conditions of pretrial release between May and July 2025, when
she engaged in sustained communications with a former client regarding the scheduling of and
payment for a cosmetic injection procedure. At Fadanelli’s direction, the injection procedure took
place in her home. Fadanelli did not report this violation of her conditions of release to her
Probation Officer; rather, the violation came to light after the former client learned of Fadanelli’s
indictment and reported the May 2025 procedure to an agent with the FDA. Then, after Judge
Hennessy ordered Fadanelli detained and to report to the U.S. Marshals by 2:00 p.m. on October
31, 2025, she violated another court order by failing to timely report. This noncompliance came
the day after Judge Hennessy expressly warned her that failing to report on time would lead to a
warrant for her arrest. Taken together, Fadanelli’s conduct evinces a repeated unwillingness to
abide by court orders. Cf. Pasciuti, 958 F.2d 361, at *7 (“The evidence that, so soon after having
been released on the condition that he not possess a firearm, defendant knowingly possessed one
manifests disdain for the court’s order and society’s rules.”). The government has met its burden
to demonstrate that Fadanelli will not abide by any condition or combination of conditions of
pretrial release, a showing that alone justifies denial of Fadanelli’s motion. See United States v.
Davis, No. 3:17-cr-669-SAL, 2020 WL 730572, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2020) (explaining that
Case 1:24-cr-10352-JEK Document 124 Filed 12/23/25 Page 7 of 10

8
the “magistrate judge’s findings under § 3148(b)(2)(B) alone are sufficient to justify revocation
and detention without the need for additional findings under § 3148(b)(2)(A)”).
In addition, and in the alternative, the government has demonstrated by clear and
convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the
safety of other persons or members of the community. The Botox and dermal fillers used by
Fadanelli are regulated as prescription drugs and devices by the FDA in part because of the health
risks involved when unlicensed individuals, like Fadanelli, attempt to inject others with the
substances, regardless of whether or not those substances are counterfeit. Fadanelli does not
dispute that the charges pending against her in the indictment are serious or that the weight of the
evidence against her is strong. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(1)-(2). And in choosing to administer
cosmetic injections to a client in violation of conditions of release that prohibited her from
engaging in such procedures, Fadanelli has demonstrated that she poses an ongoing danger to
members of the community if she remains out on pretrial release. See id. § 3142(g)(4). Each of
these factors favors detention.
Fadanelli’s principal argument for revocation of the detention order is that her ongoing
detention prevents her from making arrangements for the long-term care of her five-year-old son,
who is currently being cared for by a family friend, a nanny, and the child’s father. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(g)(3) (factor concerning history and characteristics of the defendant). Fadanelli represents
that she wishes to send her son to live with family members in Brazil, and that, as her child’s only
custodial parent, she needs to meet in person with the Brazilian consulate in Boston to effectuate
that plan. In addition to the conditions of pretrial release to which she was previously subject, she
proposes (1) location monitoring on an electronic ankle bracelet; (2) curfew from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00
a.m.; (3) a prohibition on the use of internet-connected electronic devices, unless electronic
Case 1:24-cr-10352-JEK Document 124 Filed 12/23/25 Page 8 of 10

9
monitoring software has been installed on the device; and (4) submission to searches of her person,
residence, and vehicle upon reasonable suspicion that she has violated a condition of release.
Fadanelli requests that, in light of her need to arrange for the long-term care of her son in Brazil,
the Court release her on this strict set of conditions pending trial or, at a minimum, for 30 days.
The government responds that these proposed conditions are not feasible and, in particular, that
the fourth condition is not conducted by the Probation Office in the District of Massachusetts.
In general, Fadanelli’s desire to make childcare arrangements is not by itself a sufficient
reason to release her anew, particularly in light of the record evidence demonstrating the risk of
harm she poses to other persons and the community. See United States v. Coronado, No. 1:22-cr-
00353-CNS, 2023 WL 6794324, at *1-3 (D. Colo. Oct. 13, 2023). None of the new conditions that
Fadanelli proposes would prevent her from again violating her conditions of release by continuing
to inject former clients with Botox or prescription dermal fillers in her home. Fadanelli’s record of
noncompliance with court orders undercuts her contention that she would comply with these new
conditions of release by not, for example, using an electronic device without monitoring software.
And Fadanelli has not adequately explained why she would need a minimum of 30 days to visit
the Brazilian consulate and renew her son’s United States passport. The Court concludes, for these
reasons, that the government has demonstrated that no condition or combination of conditions will
reasonably assure the safety of other persons and members of the community. Nevertheless, the
Court will deny Fadanelli’s motion without prejudice to renewal and order the parties to confer
further regarding whether some other combination of conditions could both assure the safety of
the community and enable Fadanelli to take the steps necessary to arrange for the long-term care
of her son in Brazil. If any set of conditions could feasibly be implemented in a period of time less
than 30 days, Fadanelli may renew her motion for revocation of the detention order.
Case 1:24-cr-10352-JEK Document 124 Filed 12/23/25 Page 9 of 10

10
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Fadanelli’s motion for revocation of the detention order, ECF
114, is DENIED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Julia E. Kobick
JULIA E. KOBICK
Dated: December 23, 2025 	UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:24-cr-10352-JEK Document 124 Filed 12/23/25 Page 10 of 10