IMF Director Strauss-Kahn Denied Bail

IMF Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn was denied bail today, at least until his next court appearance on May 20. He's charged with unlawful imprisonment, engaging in a criminal sex act and attempted rape. Here's the Complaint.

According to Reuters twitter feed, prosecutors argued against bail, saying he may have engaged in similar conduct once before. The defense asked for $1 million bail, saying they expect him to be exonerated. They also told the judge that the person Strauss-Kahn had lunch with on Saturday will testify he was not fleeing the hotel.

By May 20, they will probably have some elaborate plan in place for a private security firm to do 24 hour monitoring at a New York apartment or hotel (as was done for Bernie Madoff and Cameron Douglas (who still managed to violate the terms and get bail revoked.)

More from the New York Times here.

< How Did David Headley Outwit the DEA? | Donald Trump Not Running for President >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    IMF Founder?? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 16, 2011 at 12:13:17 PM EST
    The IMF was founded in 1944, a bit early for Strauss-Kahn to have been involved even peripherally.

    He's been managing director since 2004 or something, but he was not the founder.  I'm not sure you can say the IMF even has a founder per se.

    thanks, I'll fix it (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 16, 2011 at 12:17:34 PM EST
    One of the many questions I have (none / 0) (#3)
    by ruffian on Mon May 16, 2011 at 12:58:30 PM EST
    is why he was allowed to stay in a $3k per night suite, presumable at the expense of the IMF. Certainly might contribute to a master of the universe complex.

    He was on a private (none / 0) (#4)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 16, 2011 at 01:42:18 PM EST
    visit, not IMF-related.

    OK, never mind (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Mon May 16, 2011 at 02:20:21 PM EST
    Not on IMF business, but, (none / 0) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 16, 2011 at 05:22:39 PM EST
    it is not clear that his travel is not covered by IMF.  According to Slate, he receives $75,000 annually to maintain, in the interest of the Fund, a scale of living to his position.  He has carte blanche to charge for all reasonable expense and a dispensation for all hotel expenses.  

    So who is paying (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Zorba on Mon May 16, 2011 at 05:35:05 PM EST
    for this exalted "scale of living"?  I assume the quotas from the member countries (of which we are one).  May not be much money in the grand scheme of things, but every dollar/euro/whatever that goes to first class accommodations is that much money not available to lend to countries in difficulty.

    Yes, and it may create a "kingly" (none / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 16, 2011 at 06:27:30 PM EST

    And isn't that (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Zorba on Mon May 16, 2011 at 06:49:15 PM EST
    the problem with many politicians, CEO's, extremely wealthy people, famous actors and athletes, etc?  Many of them seem to develop the "kingly" attitude- the feeling that these types of perks are what they deserve.  Which seems to go along with a total disconnect from (and often a disdain for) how the majority of people are living.

    Yes, I wonder if this (none / 0) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 16, 2011 at 01:48:24 PM EST
    isn't the style in which these officials have become accustomed (he was taken off the first class cabin of Air France).  For US officials it would seem that other than the President, VP, Sec of State, travel should be a little more austere. In a NYT article on Sunday by Nicholas Kristof,  it was noted that when the late Richard Holbrook attended a meeting he took a cab, but when General Petraeus (for example) arrived at the same meeting it took a great entourage, apparently as a show of importance.

    Post Polanski fall out: (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon May 16, 2011 at 03:14:13 PM EST
    But prosecutors said that Mr. Strauss-Kahn's resources, the lack of an extradition treaty between the United States and France and the defendant's history were all reasons that he should not be granted bail.
     [Underline added.]