Whereas U.S. officers are working to extradite Peter Nygård on costs of sexual assault and racketeering from Canada, attorneys for the imprisoned attire magnate filed a bail utility on New 12 months’s Eve.
As of Monday afternoon, a bail listening to was scheduled for Wednesday. Nygård is predicted to attend by way of video, however he isn’t anticipated to bodily be within the courtroom, based on a spokeswoman for the Manitoba Courts.
The bail utility is at the moment earlier than a decide. This week’s scheduled courtroom date could lead to an adjournment to a unique date in an effort to set the time required to listen to the deserves of the applying, the spokeswoman mentioned.
Dozens of ladies have accused Nygård of rape, sexual misconduct and assault, together with some incidents that they declare occurred whereas they have been minors. These alleged legal incidents have been mentioned to have occurred within the U.S., the Bahamas and Canada. The allegations span greater than 25 years.
The 79-year-old Nygård was arrested final month and stays in custody in a Winnipeg jail. U.S. officers from the workplace of the performing U.S. legal professional for the Southern District of New York, the New York area places of work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the New York Metropolis Police Division have been concerned within the case. The self-made millionaire is dealing with a nine-count indictment. The quite a few allegations embrace that a few of his victims claimed to have had their passports taken away from them.
Jay Prober, an legal professional for Nygård, didn’t reply instantly Monday afternoon to a request for remark.
Whether or not or not the Helsinki-born Nygård will likely be launched on bail will likely be settled in courtroom. Following Nygård’s arrest final month a Canadian prosecutor mentioned that he’s “a considerable flight danger” with management over “vital property.”
Within the fall of 2019, Nygård was sentenced in Bahamas Supreme Courtroom to 90-days imprisonment and a $150,000 advantageous for contempt of courtroom following a authorized dispute that concerned, amongst different issues, an environmental group’s stolen e-mails.