USA v. Jagmeet Singh Oberoi

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
vs. 	8:25-CR-422
(MAD)
JAGMEET SINGH OBEROI,
Defendant.
____________________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
OFFICE OF THE UNITED 	DOUGLAS G.N. COLLYER, AUSA
STATES ATTORNEY
14 Durkee Street - Room 340
Plattsburgh, New York 12901
Attorney for the Government
OFFICE OF THE UNITED 	NICHOLAS C.E. WALTER, AUSA
STATES ATTORNEY
445 Broadway
Room 218
Albany, New York 12207
Attorney for the Government
LUIBRAND LAW FIRM, PLLC 	KEVIN A. LUIBRAND, ESQ.
950 New Loudon Road
Latham, New York 12110
Attorney for Defendant
Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Case 8:25-cr-00422-MAD Document 32 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 20

2
On October 22, 2025, Defendant Jagmeet Singh Oberoi was charged in a criminal
indictment with one count of conspiracy to commit alien smuggling in violation of 8 U.S.C. §
1324(a)(1)(A)(i) and (a)(1)(A)(v)(I), and eight counts of alien smuggling in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1342(a)(2)(B)(ii). See Dkt. No. 1. Presently before the Court is the Government's appeal of
Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart's Order releasing Defendant to the supervision of Pretrial
Services pending trial, and the Government's related motion. See Dkt. Nos. 18, 24. Defendant
opposes the motion. See Dkt. No. 25, 26. With permission from the Court, the Government
replies. See Dkt. No. 29.
For the following reasons, the Order is reversed, and Defendant is remanded to the
custody of the United States Marshal pending further proceedings.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Procedural History
The criminal indictment was filed against Defendant on October 22, 2025. See Dkt. No.
1. An arrest warrant was signed and issued by Magistrate Judge Gary L. Favro the same day. See
Dkt. No. 3. According to a Pretrial Services Report drafted by the Probation Department in the
Eastern District of New York, Defendant was arrested by the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security – Homeland Security Investigations ("HSI") on December 4, 2025. See Dkt. No. 9.
Defendant first appeared in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The Minute Entry dated December 5, 2025, from Magistrate Judge James R. Cho states as
follows:
Arraignment as to Jagmeet Singh Oberoi (1) Count Complaint held
on 12/5/2025, Attorney Appointment Hearing as to Jagmeet Singh
Case 8:25-cr-00422-MAD Document 32 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 20

3
Oberoi held on 12/5/2025, Initial Appearance in Rule 5(c)(3)
Proceedings as to Jagmeet Singh Oberoi held on 12/5/2025. AUSA
Rebecca Urquiola present. Defendant present with retained counsel
Leo Shalit. Government agent sworn. Defendant arraigned on a
removal complaint to the Northern District of New York.
Defendant waived identity hearing. The government opposed bail
for reasons stated on the record. Defense counsel proposed a bail
application with 2 suretors. The court denied the bail application.
Commitment order entered; the defendant will be removed in the
custody of the U.S. Marshals. Rule 5F warnings given to the
government.
United States v. Oberoi, No. 1:25-MJ-344, Minute Entry (E.D.N.Y.).
An arraignment was scheduled before Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart in the Northern
District of New York for January 7, 2026, at 2:00 P.M. See Dkt. No. 10. During the arraignment,
Magistrate Judge Stewart inquired as to whether a judge in the Eastern District of New York held
a detention hearing at the time of Defendant's arrest. See Text Minute Entry 01/07/2026. Defense
counsel and the Government disagreed insofar as the Government believed a detention hearing
had been held, and Defense counsel was unsure. See id. Magistrate Judge Stewart ordered the
parties to look into the issue and notify the Court, and he scheduled a detention hearing for
January 9, 2026. See id.
On January 8, 2026, counsel for both parties filed letters with the Court. See Dkt. Nos. 15,
16. Defense counsel stated that he contacted Defendant's attorney from the Eastern District of
New York who stated there was no bail hearing at the time of Defendant's arrest, "and that he
reserved on the record all Mr. Oberoi's rights to a bail hearing, but did make an application for
release at that time so that the defendant could voluntarily go to court in the Northern District
rather than remain incarcerated pending his first Northern District appearance." Dkt. No. 15.
Case 8:25-cr-00422-MAD Document 32 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 20

4
The parties subsequently obtained the recording of Defendant's arraignment and provided
it to Magistrate Judge Stewart and the Court.1 Magistrate Judge Cho heard arguments from
counsel regarding bail. The Government explained that Defendant had been arrested at La
Guardia Airport after booking a flight on December 4, 2025, that was scheduled to leave within
two hours from New York to Canada. Based on that representation, Magistrate Judge Cho
concluded Defendant was a risk of flight and remanded him to the custody of the United States
Marshal. At the conclusion of the appearance, Magistrate Judge Cho stated that "Defendant is
free to renew his request for bail when he arrives in the NDNY." Audio Tr. of Arr. at 10:37.
Magistrate Judge Stewart held a detention hearing on January 9, 2026. Magistrate Judge
Stewart heard arguments from both sides and ruled in Defendant's favor, finding that there was a
set of conditions which could reasonably assure Defendant's appearance in Court and setting
release conditions including a $10,000 Appearance Bond. See id. Magistrate Judge Stewart
stayed Defendant's release, however, until Monday, January 12, 2026, for the Government to file
its appeal of the release decision. See id. The Government filed its notice of appeal the same day.
See Dkt. No. 18.
Defendant's parents posted the $10,000 Appearance Bond the day of the detention hearing.
See Dkt. No. 19. Magistrate Judge Stewart, therefore, issued an Order setting Defendant's
conditions of release, releasing him to his parents, and placing him on electronic monitoring. See
Dkt. No. 20. The Government moved to stay Defendant's release pending its filing of a
1 Defense counsel transcribed portions of the recording into his brief. See Dkt. No. 25 at 3. The
Court has listened to the recording and, although Defense counsel's transcription does not appear
to be a perfect recitation of the statements made during the hearing, the sum and substance
comports with what the Court heard. See id.
Case 8:25-cr-00422-MAD Document 32 Filed 02/10/26 Page 4 of 20

5
revocation motion. See Dkt. No. 21. The Court granted the Government's request and set a
briefing schedule. See Dkt. No. 23.
B. Parties' Arguments
a. 	Government's Argument in Support of Detention
The Government argues Defendant's release must be revoked because he is a risk of flight.
See Dkt. No. 24. The Government explains Defendant is a citizen of India, but a legal permanent
resident of the United States. See id. at 6.2 He immigrated to the United States in 2023 and lives
in Queens, New York with his mother, father, sister, and brother. See id. The Government
contends one family member is implicated in Defendant's "people-smuggling scheme." Id. at 7.
Defendant's wife lives in India and Defendant travels frequently between the United States and
India. See id.
According to the Government, "[o]n December 3, 2025, a New York Police Department
officer serving as a Task Force Officer with Homeland Security Investigations called the
defendant and arranged to meet with the defendant at his and his family’s home in Queens at 7:30
a.m. the following day, December 4." Id. at 8. "The officer told the defendant that NYPD
officers wanted to discuss a hit-and-run accident that the defendant had been a victim" in 2023.
Id. The Government states that Defendant was not home when officers arrived, but that they
spoke to a family member who provided the name of a lawyer Defendant might have been hiring.
See id. at 9. Law enforcement agents contacted the lawyer and advised him that Defendant had a
federal warrant out for his arrest. See id. The lawyer stated he did not handle federal matters and
2 Citations are to the pagination generated by CM/ECF in the header of each page.
Case 8:25-cr-00422-MAD Document 32 Filed 02/10/26 Page 5 of 20

6
would put Defendant in touch with a federal lawyer. See id. When speaking with the federal
attorney, law enforcement disclosed the existence of the warrant and stated a desire for Defendant
to self-surrender. See id. "The federal lawyer said he would inform [D]efendant. Agents also
gave the federal lawyer's details to the duty Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern
District. The AUSA spoke with that lawyer and asked if [D]efendant would self-surrender." Id.
The Government states that "[t]he lawyer said he had not yet been able to reach the family of
[D]efendant." Id.
An HSI Agent received a notification at 3:29 P.M., stating that Defendant booked a flight
to leave La Guardia airport at 5:55 P.M. to Canada. See id. The Government avers Defendant's
home is fifteen minutes away from the airport. See id. Defendant was arrested in the airport,
where his mother, father, and brother were also located. See id. at 9-10. Defendant's family
members did not have tickets for any flight. See id.
As to the criminal charges underlying this case, the Government explains that on August
29, 2024, around 2:45 A.M., U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents stopped a car near
Champlain, New York,3 that agents believed was smuggling undocumented individuals. See id.
at 7. The individuals in the vehicle were in fact citizens of Indian, without status in the United
States. See id. Based on conversations between agents and the individuals of the car, agents
stopped two other vehicles near Ellenburg, New York,4 which also carried undocumented
individuals. See id. The Government explains that two of the arrestees were interviewed by law
enforcement agents and they identified Defendant as someone involved with the scheme. See id.
3 Champlain, New York is approximately twelve miles from the Canadian border.
4 Ellenburg, New York is approximately fifteen miles from the Canadian border.
Case 8:25-cr-00422-MAD Document 32 Filed 02/10/26 Page 6 of 20

7
The Government contends the arrestees also named Defendant's family member as being involved
in the scheme. See id. The information was corroborated by contents of the arrestees' phones.
See id. The arrestees identified Defendant and the other family member in photo arrays. See id.
Agents then made another arrest on September 6, 2024, by stopping a vehicle in
Churubusco, New York.5 See id. The vehicle contained eight passengers who were all citizens of
India and had recently crossed the Canadian border. See id. The driver of the vehicle was
interviewed by the agents and identified Defendant and his family member as participants in the
scheme. See id. at 7-8. The Government states the driver's statements were supported by
information in his phone and his identification of Defendant and the other family member in a
photo array. See id. at 8.
The Government states Defendant faces a five-year mandatory minimum prison term for
the crimes charged. See id. at 15. The Government notes that "[t]he Second Circuit has noted
that a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence may be a basis to detain a defendant. . . . So has this
Court." Id. (citing United States v. Blanco, 570 Fed. Appx. 76, 77 (2d Cir. 2014); United States v.
Terrance, 8:24-CR-456, 2025 WL 782340, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2025)). The Government
emphasizes that Defendant's wife lives is in India and that he faces deportation if he was
convicted. See id.
The Government repeatedly stresses Defendant's act of booking a flight from La Guardia
to Canada as evidence that he cannot be trusted to appear in Court. See id. The Government
states Defendant did so "after learning about the arrest warrant." Id. The Government
5 Churubusco, New York is approximately ten miles from the Canadian border.
Case 8:25-cr-00422-MAD Document 32 Filed 02/10/26 Page 7 of 20

8
emphasizes that it was the unindicted family member who answered the door when law
enforcement went to Defendant's home and that the unindicted family member and other family
members were at La Guardia with Defendant. See id.
The Government contends that although Defendant's passport has been seized by law
enforcement, the Defendant could still flee, particularly in light of his alleged ability to aid
individuals without passports to enter the country. See id. at 16. The Government also argues
that the electronic monitoring and Appearance Bond are insufficient to ensure Defendant's
appearance because he could cut off the monitor and the $10,000 bond "is small; the defendant
himself stated that he has been saving money, and his family was able to retain counsel to contest
the first detention hearing in New York." Id. at 17. The Government emphasizes the strong ties
Defendant has to India as that is where his wife resides. See id. at 18. The Government also
notes that Defendant has a sister residing in Canada. See id.
On February 5, 2026, the Court requested that the Government produce a copy of any
evidence it relied on via proffer in its motion no later than February 9, 2026. See Dkt. No. 28.
The Government provided the Court with numerous documents and images the same day.6
Specifically, the Government produced HSI's investigation reports from the arrests of the drivers
near the northern border of the country, the reports from law enforcement agents' interviews with
those drivers in which Defendant and a family member were identified as integral to the scheme,
and the photo array lineups in which three different people identified Defendant. The
6 The Court will not make the evidence publicly available at this time as the Government's
investigations appear to be ongoing. The parties or a reviewing Court are directed to contact the
Clerk of the Court should they require access to the documents or images proffered by the
Government or relied upon by this Court.
Case 8:25-cr-00422-MAD Document 32 Filed 02/10/26 Page 8 of 20

9
Government also produced screenshots of text messages between the drivers and Defendant with
map locations to places in New York, near the Canadian border.
b. 	Defendant's Argument in Support of Release
Defendant argues that "[a]t no time was [he] told he was going to be arrested or that there
were even any charges against him." Dkt. No. 25 at 4. Defendant states he chose not to engage
with the NYPD about the 2023 car accident in which Defendant was the victim/complainant,
which was "within his rights." Id. at 5.
Defendant also notes that the allegations in this case are just allegations and argues that
the Government has not produced any documentary evidence supporting the charges. See id. at 6-
7. As to the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, Defendant argues that the eight counts
for smuggling are tenuous, at best, because Defendant was not the person who brought or
attempted to bring the undocumented individuals into the country. See id. at 7. As to the
conspiracy charge, Defendant notes that there is no mandatory minimum term of imprisonment
and a guideline range lower than five years. See id.
Defendant emphasizes that he has no criminal history, and his passport was confiscated.
See id. at 8. Defendant also states that his sister lives in Calgary, Canada, where he was intending
to fly to. See id. at 9. He also notes that, when arrested, he had $300 and two changes of clothes
"indicating his trip was for a visit." Id. As to his family being at the airport, Defendant states that
they drove him so Defendant would not have to park the car and the family could use the car
while Defendant was gone. See id. at 8.
Case 8:25-cr-00422-MAD Document 32 Filed 02/10/26 Page 9 of 20

10
In his second response to the Court, Defendant provides screenshots of text messages from
a contact labeled "D." Dkt. No. 26-2 at 2. The screenshot shows an incoming text message dated
November 20, at 12:44 P.M., which states "Mr. Singh, this is Det adaszewski [sic] from the
NYPD. I would like to speak with you about a complaint report you filed in 4/23/23. Thank
you." Id. Another incoming text message, dated November 3, at 12:10 P.M., states "Mr Singh
give me a call, thanks." Id. A third text message dated December 4, at 7:56 A.M., states "Mr
Singh please give me a call, thanks. You said you would call me at 7:30." Id.
Defendant also provides a screenshot of an outgoing call made to "D" on November 20,
2025, at 1:46 P.M., which lasted one minute. Id. at 3. Another screenshot shows an incoming
call dated December 3, 2025, at 7:40 P.M., which lasted one minute. See id. at 4.
Defendant also attached the Pretrial Services Report and the Police Accident Report from
Defendant's 2023 car accident to his responses. See Dkt. Nos. 25-1, 25-2, 26-1, 26-3.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Where, as here, a detention hearing is authorized, the Court must then consider whether
any condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the defendant's appearance at
trial and the safety of the community, applying the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). See
United States v. Berrios-Berrios, 791 F.2d 246, 249 (2d Cir. 1986). If the Court finds that a
condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the defendant's appearance at trial
and the safety of the community, the defendant must be released. If not, the defendant must be
detained. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c). If a magistrate judge orders a defendant released on
Case 8:25-cr-00422-MAD Document 32 Filed 02/10/26 Page 10 of 20

11
conditions, the Government may file with the district court "a motion for revocation or
amendment of the order," which must be "promptly determined." 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). The
district court then conducts a de novo review, United States v. Leon, 766 F.2d 77, 80 (2d Cir.
1985), in which it may rely on the record developed before the magistrate judge or accept
additional evidence. See United States v. Colombo, 777 F.2d 96, 98 n.1 (2d Cir. 1985).
When detention is sought on the basis of flight or dangerousness, the Bail Reform Act lists
four factors to be considered in the detention analysis: (1) the nature and circumstances of the
crime charged, (2) the history and characteristics of the defendant, (3) the seriousness of the
danger posed by the defendant's release, and (4) the weight of the evidence against the defendant.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
Evidentiary rules do not apply at detention hearings and the Government is entitled to
present evidence by way of proffer, among other means. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2); see also
United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000). This is because "bail hearings
are 'typically informal affairs, not substitutes for trial or even for discovery.'" LaFontaine, 210
F.3d at 131 (quotation and other citation omitted). Nevertheless, the Second Circuit "has also
recognized that while the informality of bail hearings serves the demands of speed, the magistrate
or district judge must also ensure the reliability of the evidence, 'by selectively insisting upon the
production of the underlying evidence or evidentiary sources where their accuracy is in question.'"
Id. (quotation and other citation omitted).
B. Application
Case 8:25-cr-00422-MAD Document 32 Filed 02/10/26 Page 11 of 20

12
In the present matter, the Court finds that the factors weigh in favor of Defendant's
detention.
1. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(1), courts are to consider "the nature and circumstances of the
offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence . . . a Federal crime of
terrorism, or involves a minor victim or a controlled substance, firearm, explosive, or destructive
device." The charges in the indictment do not qualify as any such offense. See Dkt. No. 1.
In considering the nature and circumstances of the offense, the Government emphasizes
Defendant's risk of flight because he "is charged with helping aliens enter the country without a
passport." Dkt. No. 24 at 16. The Government contends "[D]efendant can leave the country as
easily — indeed, likely far more easily — as the aliens he, and the unindicted family member,
assisted in entering it." Id.
Defendant is alleged to have brought or attempted to bring eight undocumented
individuals into the United States. See Dkt. No. 1. The Government does not allege that any of
them were minors. The Government does not allege that any of the individuals were placed in
harms way during their alleged transport across the border. See United States v. Abrego, 787 F.
Supp. 3d 830, 862 (M.D. Tenn. 2025) (finding this factor to weigh in favor of release where
"human smuggling is, by ICE's own description, a transportation-based offense" despite one
cooperating witness testifying before the grand jury and others giving statements to a law
enforcement agent who testified under oath about the defendant's role in the scheme).
Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of release.
Case 8:25-cr-00422-MAD Document 32 Filed 02/10/26 Page 12 of 20

13
2. Weight of the Evidence
The weight of the evidence also favors detention. "'In assessing the weight of the
evidence against a defendant, it is important to note that the defendant is presumed innocent, and
it is not the Court's role at this stage of the proceedings to assess [the defendant's] guilt or
innocence.'" United States v. Dai, No. 3:23-CR-478, 2023 WL 11016392, *7 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 19,
2023), aff'd, 99 F.4th 136 (2d Cir. 2024) (quoting United States v. Mendez, No. 19-CR-245, 2020
WL 3263446, *4 (W.D.N.Y. June 17, 2020)) (cleaned up) (additional citation and quotation
marks omitted); see also United States v. Epstein, 425 F. Supp. 3d 306, 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)).
The Government proffered evidence demonstrating that, after three separate stops of
vehicles near the Canada border which were transporting individuals who are not citizens of the
United States, Defendant was identified as an individual involved in coordinating the transports.
See Dkt. No. 24 at 7-8. The Government has provided the Court with the law enforcement reports
related to the arrests and interviews of the drivers and the photo arrays in which the three drivers
identified Defendant as the individual involved in the scheme.
Defendant argues that although there is a mandatory minimum incarcerative sentence of
five years for a conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(b) for alien smuggling, "[t]here is no
proof before the [C]ourt of [D]efendant's role and whatever that role is, he was not the defendant
who brought 8 illegal immigrants on August 29, 2024. All those 3 drivers were located and were
not the [D]efendant." Dkt. No. 25 at 7. Defendant also notes that the conspiracy charged in
Count One of the Indictment does not have a mandatory minimum sentence. See id.
Case 8:25-cr-00422-MAD Document 32 Filed 02/10/26 Page 13 of 20

14
Defendant's argument ignores two key issues: one legal and one factual. Legally, as the
Government explains in its reply, "one is liable for a co-conspirator's substantive offenses [] 'if
commission of that offense was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the conspiratorial
agreement.'" United States v. Guldi, 141 F.4th 435, 447 (2d Cir. 2025) (quoting Gomez v. United
States, 87 F.4th 100, 109 (2d Cir. 2023)); see Dkt. No. 29 at 13. As explained, the Government
has proffered evidence that, although Defendant was not driving a vehicle transporting
undocumented individuals, he had a part in planning the transport. Therefore, as part of the
Court's discussion of Defendant's history and characteristics, the Court will consider the impact of
a five-year mandatory minimum sentence.
On the factual issue, Defendant argued there is no proof as to what his role was in the
alleged scheme in which he was not a driver. See Dkt. No. 25 at 7. However, this fails to rebut
the evidence that the three drivers identified Defendant in photo array lineups, and the
Government has proffered text messages and reports from conversations with the drivers
explaining Defendant's involvement.
This factor weighs in favor of detention.
3. Defendant's History and Characteristics
Defendant's history and characteristics also weigh in favor of detention.
Among other things, this factor asks the Court to consider "the person's character, physical
and mental condition, family ties, employment, . . . past conduct, history relating to drug or
alcohol abuse, [and] criminal history." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3). "'Pertinent factors [also] include:
a severe sentence; an extensive criminal history; a lack of community ties; hidden assets; and the
Case 8:25-cr-00422-MAD Document 32 Filed 02/10/26 Page 14 of 20

15
use of false names.'" Terrance, 2025 WL 782340, at *7 (quoting United States v. Vasconcellos,
519 F. Supp. 2d 311, 317 (N.D.N.Y. 2007)).
Both parties agree that Defendant does not have a criminal history. See Dkt. Nos. 24, 25.
He also has community ties in that his mother, father, brother, and sister live in New York. See
Dkt. No. 9 at 2. He does not appear to have any mental or physical condition impacting his
ability to follow release conditions, and he has been working as an uber driver for a little more
than two and a half years. See id. at 2-3.
However, as to the severity of the potential sentence, the Government notes, and this
Court agrees that Defendant faces a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. See Dkt. No. 24 at
15. The Government is correct that this Court "has noted that a 5-year mandatory minimum
sentence may be a basis to detain a defendant." Id. (citing Blanco, 570 Fed. Appx. at 77;
Terrance, 2025 WL 782340, at *7).
Specifically, this Court has stated that "[c]ourts have ordered detention of a defendant on
the ground of serious risk of flight where the defendant faced a sentence of approximately five
years and the potential sentence was considered in conjunction with other factors." Terrance,
2025 WL 782340, at *7 (collecting cases). This Court also noted that "[a] three-year mandatory
minimum is considerably less than other sentences that have created a potential motive to flee."
Id. (citing United States v. El-Hage, 213 F.3d 74, 80 (2d Cir. 2000) (considering that the
defendant was potentially facing life imprisonment); United States v. Zhang, 55 F.4th 141, 145,
151 (2d Cir. 2022) (same); United States v. Curtis, No. 18-CR-373, 2020 WL 1922745, *1
Case 8:25-cr-00422-MAD Document 32 Filed 02/10/26 Page 15 of 20

16
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2020) ("[T]he Court concludes that Curtis would pose a flight risk if released.
Curtis has a significant motive to flee. He is facing a minimum sentence of 10 years")).
Because of Defendant's lack of criminal history, it does not appear he has ever faced a
mandatory prison term, let alone five years. It is plausible that facing such a sentence, while also
fearing deportation, would increase one's likelihood of fleeing.
The Court is most deeply concerned by the same issue that concerned Magistrate Judge
Cho: shortly after Defendant was contacted by law enforcement, Defendant booked a ticket to
leave the country. It appears true, as Defense counsel posits, that he did not know about the arrest
warrant that had been issued by Magistrate Judge Favro regarding the federal charges. It can also
be true that Defendant has a sister who lives in Canada. However, the circumstances of
Defendant's arrest weigh in favor of detention.
There is much debate between the parties as to whether Defendant agreed to meet with the
New York Police Officer. Defense counsel produces text messages wherein the Officer asked
Defendant to meet and call him, but Defendant did not respond. Dkt. No. 26-2 at 2. Defense
counsel argues, therefore, that Defendant did not agree to meet with the Officer. However, the
screenshots also show two one-minute phone calls between Defendant and the Officer. See id. at
3-4. The Government states it has confirmed with the New York Police Officer that he and
Defendant did agree to speak to again at a later date. See Dkt. No. 29 at 8. The Government has
also produced to the Court the HSI Reports of Investigation, one of which states "Oberoi agreed
to meet with Detectives." Sealed Exh. The Court is hard pressed to believe that it is entirely
coincidental that Defendant booked a last-minute flight to Canada after numerous people alleged
Case 8:25-cr-00422-MAD Document 32 Filed 02/10/26 Page 16 of 20

17
to have been working for him had been arrested and law enforcement was knocking on his door to
discuss a car accident from two years ago.
Defense counsel states that during the 2023 car "accident, there were multiple people in
the vehicle that struck the defendant's vehicle. One person began yelling out the window of their
car at the defendant and alarmed the defendant." Dkt. No. 25 at 4. Counsel states that "[o]ne
person began yelling out the window of their car at the defendant and alarmed the defendant. The
defendant called 911 and the individuals fled the scene in their car." Id. Counsel contends that
"[w]hen NYPD tried to reach [Defendant] 2 years later claiming, specifically, it was to talk about
the 2-year-old accident, the defendant was fearful that the people from the accident would learn
who he was and where he lived and would reach out and try to cause him harm." Id. at 5.
Supposedly, Defendant "decided he did not want to further participate in any process on that
accident because he had been reimbursed by his insurance company for the damage caused to his
vehicle as a result of the accident." Id.
The Police Accident Report provided by Defendant states that "the female driver . . . stuck
her head out of the veh[icle] and stated in substance that she didn't hit his car and fled the
[scene.]" Dkt. No. 25-2 at 2. There is nothing in the Accident Report or any other document
indicating Defendant's fear of the driver. It is also a bit puzzling to the Court why Defendant
would have been seeking the advice of an attorney after law enforcement asked to speak about a
car accident in which Defendant was the victim, and which had occurred two year before.
Importantly, Defense counsel is the only individual who states such fear; Defendant has not
submitted a sworn statement or any other writing to corroborate his attorney's representations.
Case 8:25-cr-00422-MAD Document 32 Filed 02/10/26 Page 17 of 20

18
Similarly, Defense counsel asserts that Defendant "has no resources available to him" that
would give him the ability to flee. Dkt. No. 25 at 11. However, as the Government points out,
Defendant's parents posted a $10,000 bond the same day that Magistrate Judge Stewart held the
detention hearing. See Dkt. No. 19. Defendant and his father drive for Uber. See Dkt. No. 9 at 2.
There is no indication as to whether Defendant's mother and brother work and contribute to the
household. See id. The Pretrial Services Report indicates that Defendant's "entire salary goes to
the household rent and utilities, the maintenance of the family's house in India, and his financial
support of his wife." Id. Ten thousand dollars is generally no insignificant sum for a family in
those circumstances to compile; however, Defendant's family raised it the same day the detention
hearing was held. See Dkt. No. 19.
Finally, Defendant purchased a plane ticket at 3:30 P.M. for a flight that was leaving at
5:55 P.M. See Dkt. No. 24 at 9-10. Flights can be quite expensive and a weekend trip to see
family generally involves some amount of planning. The last-minute nature of the flight creates
doubt as to the efficacy of counsel's representation that Defendant was simply taking a trip to visit
his sister. See Dkt. No. 25 at 9. The Court again notes that such representation has been made
only by Defendant's attorney and not by Defendant himself. Likewise, Defense counsel's
contention that Defendant's mother, father, and brother were inside the airport with Defendant "so
he would not have to park his car and his family could use his car when he was gone," Dkt. 25 at
8, is unbelievable. It is far from plausible that three adult family members needed to come into
the airport with Defendant in order to use Defendant's vehicle while he is on vacation.
Case 8:25-cr-00422-MAD Document 32 Filed 02/10/26 Page 18 of 20

19
The standard for demonstrating a flight risk is "the lesser standard of a preponderance of
the evidence." United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001). The Court must ask
itself if it is more likely than not that Defendant will flee. In the Court's estimation, Defendant
already attempted to do so and this factor leans heavily in favor of Defendant's detention.
4. Nature and Seriousness of the Danger Posed by Defendant's Release
This factor also weighs in favor of release. First, the Government does not address this
factor in its motion for reply. See Dkt. Nos. 24, 29. Second, besides the allegation that Defendant
developed or aided a scheme to bring individuals into this country who did not have permission to
enter and whose own backgrounds are unknown, there is nothing in the record to suggest that
Defendant is a danger to the community. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of his release.
5. Insufficiency of Conditions of Release
The Government argues electronic monitoring and home confinement are insufficient to
reasonably assure Defendant's return to Court because "[l]ocation monitoring can be disabled.
The [D]efendant can cross into Canada without a passport — simply doing the reverse of what he
is alleged to have helped others do. The [D]efendant's family cannot vouch for him, and no surety
bond would influence their behavior." Dkt. No. 24 at 19.
As explained, the Court does not credit Defense counsel's contention that Defendant's
mother, brother, and father accompanied him inside of the airport for a flight he booked with two-
hours' notice solely "so that [Defendant] would not have to park his car and his family could use
his car while he was gone." Dkt. No. 25 at 8. This contention is particularly concerning in light
of the Government's proffer that one of Defendant's family members is an unindicted co-
Case 8:25-cr-00422-MAD Document 32 Filed 02/10/26 Page 19 of 20

20
conspirator. See Dkt. No. 24 at 19. Given the nature of the underlying allegations combined with
Defendant's last-minute flight and the seeming support from his family in taking the flight, the
Court is not encouraged that Defendant would abide by home confinement in his parent's care.
Based on the foregoing application of the 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors, the Court grants the
Government's motion to revoke and orders Defendant remanded pending resolution of this action.
III. CONCLUSION
After carefully reviewing the entire record in this matter, the parties' submissions and the
applicable law, and for the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby
ORDERS that the Government's appeal (Dkt. No. 18) is GRANTED; and the Court
further
ORDERS that the Government's motion to revoke Defendant's release (Dkt. No. 21) is
GRANTED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal
pending resolution of this case; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Court shall serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on
the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 10, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 8:25-cr-00422-MAD Document 32 Filed 02/10/26 Page 20 of 20