Browse by Document Type
Legal (11,650 documents)
Chapter 2: Background
l. Significant Entities and Individuals
Jeffrey Epstein was born in 1953 and, prior to his arrest, worked at various jobs in the financial industry and
ultimately developed con
referred to as a “round sheet’) falsely stating that she and Thomas had conducted such rounds when, in
fact, they had not.°
On November 19, 2019, a federal grand jury of the U.S. District Court for t
IN RE:
INVESTIGATION OF
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
IT APPEARING that the parties seek to clarify certain provisions of page 4, paragraph 7
of the Non-Prosecution Agree
EXHIBIT 4
Addendum to the
Non-Prosecution Agreement
DOJ-OGR- 00023351
By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is
material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach
of any one of these cond
sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no
objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not
later than January 4, 2008.
12. _ Epstein agrees that he will
10.
11.
proposed agreements with the State Attorney’s Office prior to entering
into those agreements.
The United States shall provide Epstein’s attorneys with a list of
individuals whom it has iden
IN RE:
INVESTIGATION OF
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
/
NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State
Attorney’s Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and f
3. Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State
Attorney’s Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and
sentence.
4. Epstein agrees that, if any of the vi
agreement. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the Fifth Amendment
and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged
in an indi
EXHIBIT 3
September 24, 2007
Non-Prosecution
Agreement
DOJ-OGR-00023339
IN RE:
INVESTIGATION OF
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
IT APPEARING that Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter “Epstein”) is reported to have
committed offenses against the United States from in o
Di npictMeNT
io
P=
ake ©
ATRUEBILL (J6- 94S 8S 3
IN THE NAME OF AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE fais LORIA 5
"oS? a
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL 2:2 == i
CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORI
EXHIBIT 2
September 6, 2007
Draft Non-Prosecution
Agreement
DOJ-OGR-00023333
to be paid to the FBI’s communications to ensure that the victims were receiving accurate and
timely information that was consistent with the status of the case and with the USAO’s
communications with
Villafafia informed Edwards about the state plea, but did not mention the NPA or the fact that the
state pleas would resolve the federal investigation. Edwards then filed the CVRA petition and
learned
intentionally concealing information from them and was part of a series of interactions with
victims that led to condemnation of the government’s treatment of victims.‘*°
VI. THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO
not plead guilty in October 2007 as the USAO expected, it was a “very open question” whether
the case would go to trial, and Acosta thought that “where there is no legal requirement[,] [t]here
has to
previously noted, there is some contemporaneous evidence supporting her assertion. Villafafia’s
mention of the agreement, even if not described in specific terms, would have been sufficient to
apprise
agent and Villafafia consulted with the USAO’s Professional Responsibility Officer about the
matter, and thereafter stopped notifying the victims about the NPA and their ability to pursue
monetary dam
investigation. Because the state indictment and information appeared to pertain to far fewer than
the total victims identified in either the state or the federal investigation, and no one at the USAO
particular charges and victims at issue. Once the hearing was scheduled, Sloman told Villafafia to
contact PBPD Chief Reiter about notifying the victims, and on June 28, 2008, she reported back
to Slo
strongly objected to the government’s plan to notify victims of the state proceedings, which he
described as “highly inappropriate” and an “intrusion into state affairs, when the identified
individual
IV. ACOSTA’S DECISION TO DEFER TO THE STATE ATTORNEY’S
DISCRETION WHETHER TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT EPSTEIN’S STATE
COURT PLEA HEARING DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR OR UNAMBIGUOUS
STANDARD; HOWEVER, ACOSTA EX
continuing.” The co-case agent also told OPR that, as of the time of his OPR interview in 2019,
the “the case was open . . . it’s never been shut down.”
OPR found no evidence that the FBI’s victim le
B. Because the Federal Investigation Continued after the NPA Was Signed, the
FBI Letters Were Accurate but Risked Misleading Victims regarding the
Status of the Federal Investigation
As described pre
breach, however, Epstein would enter his state guilty plea and the federal investigation would end.
Thus, the statement that the case was “currently under investigation” was literally true, but the
om
require victim approval of the prosecutors’ plans, but it allows victims the opportunity to express
their views and to be heard before a final decision is made. The lack of consultation in this case
d
In Wild, the Eleventh Circuit panel compared the language of the CVRA to the language
of the VRRA, noting that the VRRA “clearly extends victim-notice rights into the pre-charge
phase” and opining tha
398 The “prosecution stage”
399
and consider victims’ views about, prospective plea negotiations.
began when charges were filed and continued through all post-sentencing legal proceedings.
At the t
(ce) If the offender is convicted, the sentence and conditions of supervised
release, if any, that are imposed.
(6) Referrals. Once charges are filed, the responsible official shall assist the victim
the 2005 Guidelines was inconsistent with positions the USAO had taken in correspondence with
Epstein’s attorneys, in which the government acknowledged that “it had obligations to notify the
victims.”
letters to victims sent after the NPA was signed were not misleading in stating that the matter was
“under investigation” because the government continued to investigate given its uncertainty that
Eps
Department had made its “best efforts in thousands of federal and District of Columbia cases to
assert, support, and defend crime victims’ rights.” The response also referenced OLC’s December
2010 opi
letter was substantially identical to the previous FBI victim notification letter the FBI had sent to
victims (in 2006, 2007, and 2008) in that it identified each recipient as “a possible victim of a
civil suits that were pending against Epstein.*® Villafafia also emailed one of the pro bono
attorneys she had engaged to help victims avoid defense harassment, informing him that the federal
investig
Villafafia told OPR that before the state plea hearing, she sent Reiter a list of the victims,
including their telephone numbers, to notify and asked him to destroy the list. Villafafia recalled
that
When asked why the USAO did not simply notify the victims of the change of plea hearing,
Sloman responded that he “was more focused on the restitution provisions. I didn’t get the sense
that the victi
yes.” The court also asked Belohlavek if the juvenile victim’s parents or guardian agreed with the
plea, and Belohlavek stated that because the victim was no longer under age 18, Belohlavek spoke
with
about the NPA because it was “confidential” and because the case was under “investigation and
leading towards” the filing of charges. Villafafia recalled mentioning the conversation to her
supervisors
an instance in which Wild “asked a question that wasn’t answered” of anyone in the USAO or of
the FBI case agents.
Edwards contacted Villafafia by email and telephone in mid-June, stating that he had
CVRA rights attach prior to the filing of criminal charges.*44 The Appellate Division Chief noted
that, although the holding conflicted with the 2005 Guidelines, the “court’s opinion makes sense.”
De
camera memory cards seized by the PBPD in order to have them forensically examined for deleted
images that could contain child pornography.**”
By early April 2008, as the defense pursued its appeal t
prosecutors and did not recall learning any information about Epstein’s guilty plea until after the
plea was entered on June 30, 2008.
When asked whether she was concerned that her statements would m
for him, as U.S. Attorney, to attend witness interviews, and further, that no one in the USAO “was
questioning the pain or the suffering of the victims.” Sloman told OPR that he himself had “never
gon
in FBI interviews of Wild and other victims, Villafafia informed CEOS Chief Oosterbaan that she
anticipated the victims “would be concerned about the status of the case.”
On January 31, 2008, Villafa
We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights
described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the
arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and it wi
decision as to who can be heard at a state sentencing is, amongst
many other issues, properly within the aegis of state decision
making.*7*
Following a conversation between Acosta and Lefkowitz, in w
review the appropriateness of the potential federal charges and the government’s “unprecedentedly
expansive interpretation” of 18 U.S.C. § 2255.
In a December 19, 2007 response to the defense team, A
the USAO’s interpretation of the agreement and “the use of Section 2255.” The Starr and
Lefkowitz letter asserted it was “wholly inappropriate” for the USAO to send the proposed victim
notification le