Court Records
Filing it 125411406 E-Filed 04%021 11:42 .:00 A1‘4 •
CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC,
Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST,
Plaintiff,
DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of
Beach County, Florida,
BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm
Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R.
Defendants.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB
DIVISION: AG
'CI\ 9APPENDIX TO MOTION OF PLAINTIFF CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
1. Excerpts from the March 19, 2010 de ith of Detective Recarey (Volume I and
2. Eacerpts from the April 27 0 0 sition of Detective Recarey (Volume III and
IV)
3. November 2020Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility Report
4. Excerpts from the 'November 23, 2009 video-taped deposition of Michael Reiter (Volume
I and-II)
5. May It2006 Michael S. Reiter, Chief of Police, letter to Barry E. Krischer, State Attorney
6. Indictment
7. Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement
8. Plea Deal
9. July 8, 2019 Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney, letter to The Honorable Henry
Pitman re: United States v. Jeffrey Epstein; Case No. 19 CR 490 (RMB)
Dinneen Trost PA • 401 Ent Lai COS Boulevard. Sone 2000
Party JOINT
IN. J27 EV
DATE ADMITTED
0541765.0500 • Fax 954.76.5.1477 •
CA/ArorntlerriP000380 BEACH COUNTY, FL, J
awry 201al
MATEO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736027
10. Italy 8, 2019 DepartmentoflusticoUS. Attorney's Office for the.Southem District of New
York Prest Release "Jeffrey Epstein Charged in Manhattan Federal Court With Sex
Trafficking Of Mincer?
II. August 27, 2019 hearing Transcript from. United States Diefrict Court of the Southern
District of New York, United Sates of America v: Jeffrey Epstein; Case No. 1 R 490
(IWB)
12. Palm Beach:Post articles 'S"
13. Jung 3,2020 Rearing Transcript:on the Motion to:Dismiwin.0 it: , of Palm Beach
Cotinty, CA:Florida Hbldings LLC Publisher of thoP ' ' ch t•v: Dave Aronberp„V
Sharon R. Beck; CaseNo. 50-2019-A-01468:1
Dated: .Apfil 22, 20'21 Resp itted,
BERG TRAUR1G,:P.A.
for GA Florida Holdistg.t LW,
Ib'lihher of The Palm Beach Post
hen A. MendOlsohn, Esq.
401,East Las Colas.Blycl., Ste. 2000
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone: ([Phone Redacted]
Tacsimile:. ([Phone Redacted]
By: .11/Sietihen.A. Mendelsohn
STEPHEN' A. MENDELSOHN
.Florida Bar No. 849324
mendelsohnsfagtlaw.com
smiihlOatlaw com
`FLServicelttlawcom
By: Id Michael .! Grygiel
:MICHAEL GRYG1ELi
(Admitted Prof -lac Vice)
54 Slate St., 6ih Floor
Albany, New York 12207
Telephone: ([Phone Redacted]
Facsimile:O18) 689-1499
grvaielmfaIgtlaw:cont
Gioiitabil limit, PA. • 401 fail In Oho Boulevard. Suite 2000 • Ft. Uuderdali, Florida 33301' • TN [Phone Redacted] • Fai9S4.766.10? • ww ttlai• corn
2
CA/Aronberg-000390
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736028
• •
By: IstNina. a flovaiien.
NINA D. BOYAJIAN
(Admitted.PreRac Vice)
1840:CenturyPark.East, Ste. 1900
LosAngeles, California 90067
Telephone; ([Phone Redacted]
Factimila: ([Phone Redacted]
bovaiiantierttlaw.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that. on this 22od dayblApril,.2021, a true .py ofthc
foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the Spite e-filing system,
whiCh will send .a notice of electronic service for all parties of ere
/s/Steph A. aA9e7klelsohn
STE A. MENDELSOHN
Gilkey, Iliad& PA. • 01 (Sums Glas SWIMS, SPAS 2030 • II lauderdale, llorkla 33301 • tel '54.765.0500 • Fat [Phone Redacted] • wattLait (oat
3
CA/Aronberg-000391
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736029
• •
Appendix 1 A
GO
(S ,
CA/Aron.g.0.2
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, EL, _ ABRUZZO, CLERIC 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736030
Page t
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRI'CT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 00-CIV-80119-MARRA/IIIIIII
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
-vs- VOLUME I OR II. AftS ,
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
5 5(2 "
Related. oases;
08-80232,„ 08-01380.,
08-20993, 08-80811,
o9-80.591, 09-00656,
A‘eL
Reported Byi
Cynthia , RPR, FPR
Notary Public! State. of Florida
Prose Court Reporting
Job No.: 1509
Nest
oe-som 02-8029 469
09-80 81092
ridaY4
SZT.IQN OF
C. . REcAozr
March 19, 2010
9:37 - 5:L2 p.m.
250 Australian .Avenue South
Suite 1500
Palm Beach r Florida 33401
([Phone Redacted] PROSE. COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. ([Phone Redacted]
CA/Aronberg-000393
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736031
Page 2
1 . IN THE CIRCUIT. COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
2 CASE No,502008CA037119XXXXMB AB
3
B.B..
4
Plaintiff,
5
6
1 JEFFREY EPSTEIN
AND'
8
Defenaanter
9
.10
'11
12
13
hew,VOLUME I OF II
CO AS
c
DEPOSITI4A(
$
RECAREY DETECTIVE
14 Fri , M th :19., 2010
15 : 5:12 p.m.
16 50 A ralian Amenue South
Suite 1500
17 Wes Palm Beach, Florida 33401
18
19
20
Ihs./
21 ek
22 Reported By:
Cynthia. , RPR, FPR
23 Notary,P!!!!! 'State of Florida
Prose. COI= Reporting
24 Job No.. 1509
25
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT :REPORTING AGENCY, -INC. ([Phone Redacted]
CA/Aron berg-000394
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736032
• •
Page 3.1
1 Q. I. underStarieL Now; itis obviously not
2 public at' that point. Youtre .keeping the
3 invettigatiOn private?
4 A. Correct,
5 Q. But nonetheless alI those d'ocuments that
6 you would have reviewed from Ms, Pagan would
,
heikeS
7 been business records of the police depart mat
8 the time?
9 A, Correct. (L )
10 Q. 1 understadd.. Now, wh= reviewed this
11 information from. Detective P • Id you walk us
12 through exactly' what ained occurred to
13 her?
14
15
16 Mr. Eps ein OUSe for the purpose of making
17 money s p ' iding a massage.
18 . KUVIN:. Okay.
19 THE WITNESS: Onte she got there, She was
20 O taken upstairs to the bedroom area. At that
21 time what my understanding was is they were
22 taken 'to the bedroom area through. the stairwell
23 where Mr. Epstein was awaiting to do a massage.
24 MR. MIN: Okay.
25 THE WITNESS: The massage began. At some
MR, PINE: o
THE W E : She was taken. to
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT :REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) R.32-7506
CA/Aronberg-000395
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736033
• •
Page 32
1 point during .the massage Mt. Epstein -- this is
2 all. off recollection by the way.
3 MR. EUVIN: If you want to use the
4 incident report, what we're referring - to would
5 be on Pages 11 through roughly 15 of the
6 incident report --
7 MB.. P1KE: JuSt --
8 MR. KUVIN! -- if you need it
9 refresh your recollection.
:10 MR. PIKE: Just so the d iS tlett,
11 we're still on. the one' There is a
12 form objection. on th nswer.
13 THE WITNES8v -- I haven found
14 exactly where e 0
15 I know. --
NESS:.MRCee
I think it's at Page. 14.
17 Til -- Where there was Some
16
18 tou involved, and Mr. Epstein then, I
19 elieve, introduced a massager.
20 KUVINz
21 Q. A vibrator?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Okay. WaS she asked to take her Clothes
24 off according to what she told the ',Once
25 department?
At-
jInto the story, however
('[Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT aEPORTING AGENCY, INC. ([Phone Redacted]
CA/Arontrerg-000396
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERIC. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736034
Page as
1 MR. PIKE: Form.,
2 THE WITNESS Yes,
3 BY MR. KUVIN:
4 Or And how old was she at the time?
5 MR. PIKE: Form.
6 THE WITNESS: Fourteen.
7 BY ;MR., KUVIN::
8 Q. Was there an investigation as
9 actually was taken to the home? In pt r ords did
:10 you determine who took het thtre
11 A.. Correct.
12 Q. Who was that?
13 A.
14
15
16
17 A. No, e did'not.
18 Qr at this point?
19 NO.
20
IC:4)Q
Did you ultimately interview Ms. Imp
21 A. Ye*, I didr
22 O. With .respect to what explained, I
23 'Woad like to walk through this AI I eteid for a
24 minute.
25 MR. PIKE: What page are you on?
BY :MR, KtIVIN.:
= c>,
MR, PINE:
'See
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT .REPORTING AGENCY, INC. ([Phone Redacted]
CNAronberg-000397
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736035
• •
Page 31
1 MR. KUVIN: Fourteen.
2 BY.MR, KUV.IN;
3 Q. Was there another woman that she described
4 in the home at Epstein's house?
5 MR. PIKE: Form.
6 THE WITNESS: Yes.. She described
7 blonde female which I believe was Ned'
8.
9 BY MR. KUVIN:
10 Q. Okay. And what did Ma va. do
11 2412 PIKE: Form,
12 BY MR. KUVIN:
13 Q. -- as far
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 r Q. Upstairs in .Mr. 8pSteinis hoUsO
23 MR. PIKE: Same objection.
24
25
as ASte described to youl
si
MR. PIKE: a objection.
Sate THE W E • If I can just I am going
to --
MR. . TN': Yeah, take a look.
WITNESS: Nadia was the one who took
THE WITNESS: Yes.
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT .REPORTINU AGENCY, INC. (561) S32-7506
CA/Aronberg-000398
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736036
Page 35
1 BY MR. KUVIN:
2.
3 El
4
5
6 BY
7
8 this. When she getS -Upstairs;
9 room?
:10
11
12 BY MR.. KUVIN:
13 Q. Okay. At th i
14 that Mr. Epstein c s I
15 MR. P : orm.
.16 TH S:. Thi$
17 Officer
18 BY :MR. K
19 Pagan, yes?
20 O A Yes.
21 MR, PIKE: Same objection,
22 BY MR, KUVIN1
23 Q. Al/ right. And what does Mr. BPStein do
24 at that pbint according to What explained?
25
Q. The same home that we described before on
Brillo Way?
MR. PIKE: Form.
THE WITNESS:. Yes. A
MR. KUVIN:
Q. All right. Let's walk through s f
the wome t s the
MR. PIKE: Form.
THE WITNESS: Corr
MR, PIKE: Form.
is
does she tell. you
what she's informing
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT ;REPORTING AGENCY, INC. ([Phone Redacted]
CAJAronberg-000399
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736037
Pa9e 36
1 THE WITNESS: He told her to remove.; take
2 off her clothes..
3 BY MR. KUVIN:
4
5
6
7
8
9 Mr. Epstein's demeanor with respect to ng her to
10
11
12 THE WITNESS:. I he was stern when
13 he instructed her ve her elOthing.
14 BY MR. KUVIN:
15 Q. What ressed in?
16 Form.
17 TFl NES8 In a towel.
18
19
20
21 M. PIKE: Form.
22
23
24
25
take
BY MR.
Q. Okay. And She's 14 At
MR- ?IKE: Form..
THE WITNESS: .
BY MR, KUVIM:
Q. What did
off. fret clothes?
Correct.
this point?
explain was
MR, PIKE: Form:
Could you
his
explain to us exactly what
pstein supposedly- instructed her to do --
or,
Q.. -- and then what he did?
MR_ ?IRE: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: He instructed :her to provide
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. ([Phone Redacted]
CA/Aronberg-000400
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736038
Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6 buttocks
7 mN. ?IKE: root 'move to strike. 7 .,‘
8 BY MR. KUVIN:
9 What happened next? C 1/4 )
.10 MR. PIKE: Form.
11 THE WITNESS: He t er onto his back
12 and was. masturbating
13 BY MR.
14. Q, Okay. D'. sturbate to conclusion
17
CP16 Form. MR
15 according to he
NESS:. It doesn't state. in the
18 rep
19 BY KUVIN:
20 O Q. Okay. Did describe what her reaction
21 g to what was occurring at this point?
2Z KUVIN: Form,
23 THE WITNESS: She was. disgusted by his
24 action's but didn't say anything.
25
a massage pointing to the specific lotion for
her to use. Be laid on the table face down.
As she was providing the massage; he asked her
to get onto his back.. She straddled herself
along his back and advised that her exposed as
was touching his bare buttOoks.
(561) 832-750.0 PROSE COURT aEPORTINQ ACENCY, ([Phone Redacted]
CA/Aronberg-000401
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736039
Page 106
1 BY MR. KUVIV:
2 Q. Okay. And what does She describe. occurs
3 between het,
4 anything?
5 MR. PIKE:: Form.
6 THE WITNESS:: It was oral sex per-for
7 her, There was strap-on penises "Ail'
8 There was other sexual toys being -
9 vibrator.
:10 BY MR. KUVIN:
'11 Q. Does she describe w or not
12 Mr. Epstein actually puts ig gers inside: of her
13 vagina or not?
14 A. Yes,
:15 MR. P r m
16 BY MR., KUVIN
17 Q. Wha oes she state eboUt that?
18 . PIKE: Form.:
19 THE WITNESS: That Mr. Epstein inserted
20 O his fingers in her vagina in an attempt to make
21 her climax as she was masturbating him..
22, BY MR, KUVIN:
23 Q. All of this while she was how old?
24 A. Sixteen.
25 Q. All right, At some point you have to stop
Mr.. Epstein, if
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT ;REPORTING AGENCY, .INC. ([Phone Redacted]
CA/Aronberg-000402
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736040
Page 112
1 BY MR. KUVIN:
2 Q. any lawful, reason why you could think
3 of why a 16-.year-old girl tenild.deteribe
4 Mr. Epsteires penis?
5 MR. PIKE Form.
6 THE WITNESS:: No,
7 BY .MR,
8 Q. Did MS. Jane. Doe No. 103 des ether
9 or not she had an. ongoing sexual relat 1p with
10 Mr.. Epstein. and Ms. MardinkOva
11 A, Yes, she did. She hat --
12 MR. PIKE: Form
13 THE WITNESS: ated that
lA woµ10 come over th
lv
was, she would. have
tt i
15. either tel with Nadia or -- and at one
26 point s stated there were soma
17 photogra taken of het in the tUb with Nadia.
PIKE: Form,
19 BY
2D O Q. Did you ever recover those photographs?
21 No,
22. MR., PIKE: Form, move to Strike. the
23
24
25
when. she
previous response.,
MS. EZELt:• Mr. Knvins excuse me:. I. waS
trying to object to the 'form .of the previous
([Phone Redacted]
I
PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, "NC. ([Phone Redacted]
CA/Aronberg-000403
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736041
• •
Page 114:
1 second paragraph from the bottom..
2 A. I know,, but do you want' to me to use her name
3 or use the redacted portions of it?
4 Q, Yes, We're. discussing Ms. Jane Doe No,
5 103 at this point.
6 AT "Jane Doe No. 103 advised one day,
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14.
15
/6
17
18
19
20
21
22.
23
24
25
No. 103 was unable to state the exact date X incident
occurred."
0. I'm sorry. Read it to yours, f nd I will
just ask you questions.
A. Okay"
Q. Sorry about tha Did Ms, Jane Doe
'No. 103 describe to. yo a i ident that ocourred in
the massage' room: a g, home?
A. Yes.
MR L PI Form.
gY tia. RUVIN't
what did she describe to you. with
rem t. tO Epstein. and her and any contact. that he
ave had with her?
MR, PIKE: Form.
THE WITNESS: She stated.that she had gone
up to the bedroom and that both and
Epstein were in the bedroom. They were already
naked. She had removed her clothing. There
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT R'EPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561.) 832-7506
CA/Aronberg-000404
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736042
• •
Page 115.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 vagina.
9 BY MR. KUYIN;
:10 Q. Did. She say whether or his was.
11 consensual or not?
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 WITNESS She said, this occurred for
19 fiery quick. He removed hiMtelf from her
20 O vagina,
21 MR, KUVIN;
22 Q. bid she say whether or not she told him
23
24
25 MR, PIKE: Form, move to strike.
was an appointed time when her and Nadia began
kissing, toughing on the massage table. She
statedthat she had achieved, climax'.
All the. while this was. occurring
Mr. Epstein was masturbating.. At one
point Mr. Epstein put her onto the
table and inserted kis penis in0
MR, PIKE; Form \ Sy
BY MR. KNVIN.;
THE WITNESS4$;(las
Q. And. w
that point?
MR, :
' She say occurred :h4ppened at
Form.
not consensual.
no?
A. Y.es..
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT :REPORTING AGENCY, INC. ([Phone Redacted]
CAJAronberg-000405
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736043
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
10
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 119
3
A. Yes.
QA All right. And you were present?
A. Yea.
Q. Tell use, if you Would, how you. found the
5 state of the home when you arrived on that date .fprr
6 the inspection? A ims
7 MR.. PIKE:. Form.
"S e
8 MR.. KUVIN:. Or for the execu ' the
warrant, excuse me,
THE WITNESS: It was d ned, obviously
when we were in the hou the house. was
somewhat sanitized.
MR. PIKE: F m \
MR, KUVI De ribe what you mean,
we just got diScOnneCted.
Ms(:!:7
(A A of recess was held.)
KUVINt We lost you, Kathy,
MS. EZELL.: Sorry. Lost yOu for a minute.
Q. All right. You mentioned before we took a
quick break there that you felt that the hOUse was,
or you determined that the house was somewhat
sanitized. Cat you describe what yob mean by that?
MR, PIKE: Form.
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT:REPORTING AGENCY, INC. ([Phone Redacted]
CA/Aronberg-000406
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736044
Page 120
1
2
3 removed.. The wires were luSt left. The
4 cabinet in which they claimed all the: oils were
being kept were:, was empty except for one
F. bottle that was way in the back. The. dre
7 the bedroom: where they claimed all th
8
9
10
11
12
13
14.
15 .security camerae: home?
18 A. Ye were.
17 MR. : Form.
18
19 And. do you retell whether there
20 ed based on your inspection in the upstairs
21 ea of the home?
22. MR, PIKE: Form,
23
24
2.5
THE WITNESS: The CPU's were removed. The
CPU.'s being the computers.
Were was empty. That's what I Me
MR, KUVIN:- Sanitized?
THE WITNESS: (Wittiest head.)
BY 'MR. KUVIN::
Q, Okay. During t ction that you did
or the warrant, execut he warrant, did you
determine whether (;) no here were any internal.
BY MR. K
The 'towers were
were any
THE WITNESS:. Not in the upstairs area,
There Was a covert clock in the downstairs
office area and there was another covert cloCX
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. ([Phone Redacted]
CA/Aronberg-000407
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736045
Page 130
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
-vs- VOLUME II OF .) 440 ,
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
CPDefendant.
• Related cases:
08-80232, 08-08380, 08-8038
I S/9
c0- 994
08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80 S 9 80469
09-80591, 09-80656, 09., , -81092
POSITION OF
IVE RECAREY
Friday, lIrch 19, 2010
K
S4.4.)
Reported By:
Cynthia , RPR, FPR
Notary Public, State of Florida
Prose Court Reporting
Job No.: /509
9:37 - 5:12 p.m.
250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 1500
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
•
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. ([Phone Redacted]
ctronicany signed by Cynthia 1(601-[Phone Redacted])
rirnnietally cinnarl Ire rvnthia nnkint ISM J151 -07R -20M1
CA/Aronberg-000408
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736046
Page 131
1
2
3
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE-No.502008CA037319XXXXMB AB
B.B.
Plaintiff,
6 -vs- VOLUME II OF II
7 JEFFREY EPSTEIN
a
Defendants.
9
CO
AND
10
11
12 DEPOSIT4(ii i51$5)--
13
DETECTIVE ii.ficv RECAREY
14 Fri M ch 19, 2010
15 - 5:12 p.m.
16 a50 ralian Avenue South
Suite 1500
17 Wes Palm Beach, Florida 33401
18
19
20
21
Reported 22 Reported By:
Cynthia , RPR, FPR
23 Notary Public, State of Florida
Prose Court Reporting
24 Job No.: 1509
25
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
ctronicOy signed by Cynthia pp (60 .05i-97649m) Ent -snit -Alit cioned hv rvnthla nn Inv isni.nsi.oss.ssul
([Phone Redacted]
CNAronberg-000409
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736047
Page 132
2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
3
CASE NO. 10-80309
4
5 JANE DOE NO. 103,
9 Defendant.
8 JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
10
11
6 Plaintiff,
7 -vs- VOLUME- II ( Mhf.d.Slo,
12 DEPOS
‘
DETECTIVE RECAREY
13
14 Fri %+, rch: 19-, 2010
15 9. 7 - 5:12 p.m.
16 50 )S tralian Avenue South
Suite 1500
17 tal,041:s Palm Beach, Florida 33401
18
19 ric 20
21
S icrAl 4Fihr ,
22 Reported By:
Cynthia , RPR, FPR
23 Notary Pub lc, State of Florida
Prose Court Reporting
24 Job No.: 1509
25
WV.S.T da•••••••MV,•••••••••••••••riniranar•WW.Inyligiraonla,e."7,..reyre allitecte .....ineaMS.IN•VIVR.IpPrifilrein..... ,- -e4.-. 0.••••••••••• .4inti
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
ctronlcally signed by eynthis En (601-[Phone Redacted])
thank-AIN cinneed by reunthla 1401.0c1.117R-2513/11
• ([Phone Redacted]
CA/Aronberg-000410
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736048
Page 150
1 MR. PIKE: Form.
2 THE WITNESS: I was told it was Roy
3 Black's office that had them.
4 BY MR. KUVIN:
5 Q. Gotcha.. All right. Let's keep going
6 here. Item 58 was another massage table tha as
7 taken as evidence?
8 A. Correct.
C O9 MR. PIKE: Form.
10 BY MR. KUVIN:
11 Q. You saw
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. Okay. Let' lo at the next page, six of
14 six. It says a p tograph with a naked girl.
15 Do you recall e e at was taken from?
16 A. T taken out of the, I believe,
17
18 VMR. PIKE:
19 B M UVIN:
20 Q. Could you tell by looking at the
21 otograph whether it was an underage girl?
22 MR. PIKE: Form.
23 BY MR. KUVIN:
24 Q. I mean, was it a young girl, a mature
25 girl, old?
bedroom.
that massNeke?
Form.
I
I
I
I
I
1
•
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
clronically signed by eynthla El(801-4:[Phone Redacted])
ittranically clnnnd lw rvnthia nn 18111a1.0711.2113/1
(561)- 832-7506
CA/Aronberg-000411
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736049
Page 151
1 A. No, it was a young girl.
2 MR. PIKE: Same objection.
3 THE WITNESS: Very young girl.
4 BY MR. KUVIN:
5 Q. Could you tell the age from the photo?
6 MR. PIKE: Form.
7 THE WITNESS: Younger than ten.
8 BY MR. KUVIN:
9 Q. Could you find any photograph girls
10 that were victims during the inv ig.tion? Did you
11 find any photographs of girls ere victims
12 during the investigation?
13 MR. PIKE:
ASS'
14 THE WITNE ere were photographs taken
15 during the e r warrant, topless females that
16 were to n. t, no, I did not locate one of
17 the victi in the photos.
18 KUVIN: Okay. If we look at what
19 '11 mark as Exhibit 5, appears to be a
20 supplement of the chain of custody log, two
21 pages. Make sure I have got it. It's three
22 pages actually.
23 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 5 was marked for
24 identification. )
25
1.
I
,••••••••••••• • ....•••••••....•••
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
annkaity signed by cynthia M(601-[Phone Redacted])
cttnnirsolh, ginned Mcvnthlv I/1014M Al7R-703411
•
([Phone Redacted]
$
CA/Aronberg-000412
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736050
Page 157
1 THE WITNESS: No.
2 BY MR. KUVIN:
3 Q. Narrative 18, it looks like you made
4 telephone cbntaCt pith another looks like WF,
5 I assume it means female, on November 8. QP
6 you recall which girl that may have been?
8 BY Mit KUVIN:
7 MR. PIKE: Form.
9 Q. Let me ask it this way:
10 recounting of the incident with
M
Jane Doe No.
11 103?
12 A. No.
13 Q. This is a di girl?'
14 A. This is ff ent girl.
15 MR. P rm to both questions.
16 TH WIT : This was a different girl
17 and I am ing to remember who it was.
18 BY MR. KU
19 Do you recall the name
20 Yes.
21 Q. Is that who this was?
22 MR. PIKE: Form.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, it was
24 BY MR. KUVIN:
25 Q. Okay. And apparently she had reported
y
p
I
1
I
do.m.em.
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
ctronicalty signed by cynthia Fp (601-[Phone Redacted])
ntretninally cinneel nEnthia nn nt fRA1-11C1.07R.70:1411
([Phone Redacted]
CA/Aronberg-000413
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736051
Page 158
1 sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein?
2 A. That is correct.
MR. PIKE: Form, leading.
4 BY MR. KUVIN:
5 Q. Did she report any sexual contact
6 Mr. Epstein?
7 A. Yes, she did.
8 Q. What type?
9 MR. PIKE: Form.
10 THE WITNESS: She was o have vaginal
11 intercourse.
12 MR. PIKE: Fo "to strike.
13 BY MR. KUVIN:
14 Q. Did you er ne how old she was when she
15.
16 Mr. Epstein
17 MR. TIKE: Form.
18 T E WITNESS: Sixteen years of age.
19
YY
rrMR. PIKE: Spencer, can you hold on?
20
644,4 ;: i4)
MR. KUVIN: Yes, sir.
21 MR. PIKE: Let's go off the record for a
22 second.
2.3 (A discussion was held off the record.)
24 MS. EZELL: If I could interject, I was
25 fumbling on mute and I wanted to move to strike
reported havin t i aginal intercourse with
enresp*Ww.....64.60.8.4 , ..... • • - , wwwwwWnwraw.w0.wwwwwwW.W.w.a0 •frio0•41h••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••W••••••••••••••••••.al•••••••••••••64. • •••••••••• • ..._.-•-•.
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING. AGENCY, INC.
ctronically signed by cynthia MEM (601-051-976:2934)
elf/mit-alit* o innon lw rvnthiA =r rrM Mt11.1151417R-29.141
([Phone Redacted]
CA/Aconberg-000414
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736052
2.
4
Page
514tteRAXPO tICPPer X.Or 01011ili ini0cgr#c:It}s ,i4 rid
41pAciX they; .went opeieltsitifdo the massage.
(Mr. Epstein• Ant the(d'ojap0.:tiOn TP:044
.WITNESS Arid' that-mas the :time that
1:0045;oA
.BY• AR% Kt317214't
1eaibed of thin_ r;As.40•5ge.
tt!, fiLndArlOw JakkaLy 4%?..
MR:, MIRE 1•1!- roirm-.•
1%.11E Sjim• ':h*F why Om.
•Stere• :going' to do the tad of the
; • inddellang
IZ B1'1112, lit/3/111e.
•
A
I
All Jigbt,(4(;. ol .9e:t Pr
0141:get undres's'ed tiNiiert
1$ A, :ye:$ h
16•
111' V114:
'zs
3.0; 3e , !p0toth villa:s§age:NWA-tle was ,naked?
20' Etalux
21. 1XE MIVOESSI 'Ye
≤tie' te4.ivoil—whetnet 'cat' not she
'V gUVIN:
:ZS explAin7441-5?Q4AAttin'Sil $pAt.eini
32$ tOdtlred het'?
MR.. 15 :1Z FIDPIL
enielMtottw•-‘"Viv"rmr.•>!." . "" -tigreoll, ,, Ps7ra'rn”-,tr'w•Par'??:. 11""!"?Itinnerfttsmitsrnwietiranivittae`.5" -"" 7"••••!'"
PROSE 0,0WWWW5APPW; !Ot,,74.50:
etConlanY,signed,by cyniga *tans (BQ111/51 976-2934)
04^4 1 Itinit; 1?! 1)^^filfrig A41 JIM QTC ?".41
CA/Aronberg-000415
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736053
Page 181
THE WITNESS: Yes, he did.
2
3
BY MR. KUVIN:
Q.
A.
Where.?
I believe he stroked her vagina.
Q. Do you recall whether she discussed if ,{3e
touched her breasts as weI12
'MR. PIKE: Form.
8 THE WITNESS: He may have.
9 recall. I believe so.
10 ,BY MR. KUVIN:
11
12
13
14 THE WITN : 1 sturbated.
15 BY MR. KUVIN:
16 Q. d she tell you whether he
17 ejaculated eve ally?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 MR. PIKE: Form. That would be double
25 hearsay.
4
! 4c, A.
U MR. KUVIN:
"t
Q. Okay. What did_sh you Mr. Epstein
was doing during this mas ?
MR. PIKE:
to
Form.
THE WITNESS: I believe he did.
MR. PIKE: And leading.
Q. Did discuss anything with you about
threats made by Mr. Epstein to her?
2
I
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY; INC.
ctronical)y signed by cynthia (601-[Phone Redacted])
rtennIrnitv connote., by twnthia hnnkint lant.1151-97‘.7P1Al
([Phone Redacted]
CA/Aronberg-000416
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736054
Page 183
1 THE WITNESS: She stated that if she spoke
2 of this to anyone, bad things could happen.
3 BY MR. KUVIN:
4
5 MR. PIKE: Form.
6 THE WITNESS: Yes.
7 BY MR. KUVIN:
8 Q. Did she explain why she was
9
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, she She explained
11 that because he was ver • y, you know,
12 that he could pay so hurt her or her
13 family.
14 BY MR. KUVIN:
15 Q. Did M explain whether or not she
16 received any nal contact from Mr. Epstein or
17 one of his age
18 . PIKE: Form.
19
20
21
2.2 Q. All right. If you would take a look at
23 Page 20 of 22. It says here: stated that
24 several days later she received a telephone call
25 from who coordinated for to return
Q. Did Ms. tell you that she was afraid?
MR. PIKE:
THE WITNESS:
time to the house.
MR. KUVIN:
Form.
I believe she went another
I
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
stronically signed by eyntNa RIE (601-[Phone Redacted])
rim /Or-gibeadrenal 1w nvighle inc
([Phone Redacted]
CA/Aronberg-000417
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736055
Page 187
1 BY 140.:. MYsti'f4
2: Q. ArialMar zotoofte:d thitio4 titka :Second timid
she was At. Ochome , --
t 'HR:: .PIKEN :Totality
e 1,04. SUM
zedcit.dittl: to hen
7 Ofit; .keXotrw6t, to , the home w.ith
massage -Was. oob'Eltletettc
AIL ciat. Aria .014,th4S. 'pap le*PAPo7
tir-“ EliStela' tialtdel?
C43EXP,9.t..
:VI .KEI
Y14• tb thS. ltObtkigji§ .11et, tie\
1:0 NV, 1MT.w:
irlYOUT:e arty—tvo. Y4It tpsie.a) oT her:
1:6 K Torfri::
17
18'
klheme , H:tha. ae) 4t.41 :.you Oat 1,4%., tpgbei.n
20 ed itre:1;7
110xPt,
22 'THEOWIINgSS: ' .8116 *0f0rh4! .P.PrA Fier
23 vagina -was , .touched he was.
BY MR... KU
2.4 Thast0rbating.
apoXter.
(•561) f332-7500 PROSE CORY R&P0RTING>AG£NCY,
cuonlcalty signed, by cynthla hopkins (601-051-976-29A.
riran;r Ally nalnmi br r vnthii hnnking Ign1.1141.075.‘201 .41.
(5614 .830-7506
CA/Aronberg-000418
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736056
Page 188
1 BY MR. KUVIN:
2 Q. Okay. Did she describe during the second
time whether or not Mr. Epstein climaxed?
4 MR. PIKE: Form.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, she did.
6 BY MR. KUVIN:
7 Q. And did she recount for Aqt not u
8
9
Mr. Epstein made another threat toyoh:2 5 ,
conclusion of this massage?
10 MR. PIKE: Form. Who^ate 4e talking
11 about?
12 MR. KUVIN:
13 THE WITNESS
14 BY MR. KUVIN:
15
16 M PT : Form.
17 THE ITNESS: She said that she was not to
18
19 pen.
20 KUVIN:
21 AT?h, Q. When you talked to her, was she afraid,
22
23 something to her or her family?
24 A. Yes. She was afraid that someone would hurt
25 either her or her family.
f this to anyone; bad things could
bless you, was she afraid that Mr. Epstein would do
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
ctronically signed by Cynthia =.(61)14/514,764934)
rtennirmiv ctrInnl by evnthia n tantakt.07142fLUI
([Phone Redacted]
CAthronberg 000419
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736057
Page 299
1 stuck around just to assist the victims.
2 BY MR.
3 Q. And when you talk about the statement that
4 you provided, did you present testimony related to.
5 all of the minor females that you discovered to ve
6 come in contact with Jeffrey Epstein or
7 four or five names that ultimately
8 of your probable cause affidavit?
9 MR. PIKE: Form
10
11
12
13 point it was Lann
14 I'm sorry ou the last name. I don't
15 know how tgsae her last name.
16
17
BY MR.
And Q. And talking with the State Attorney's
18
19
20 had come in contact sexually with Mr. Epstein?
21 MR. PIKE: Form and assumes facts not in
22 evidence.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, they were aware of the
24
25
Office du
the
and
only
were
at0
compound
THE WITNESS: As far a
the grand jury, I only a
that were asked of m
end
estimony at
the questions
state. At that
avek.
the investigation, did you indicate to
number of underage females that you were
probable cause affidavit which indicated all
the facts.
I I
...WV IPA. .......••••• • 4,14r f•V`•••••••,., I .•-..•1** O., • rq N ••• •••••••••.••••.ny
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY; INC.
ctronically signed by cynthla pp. (601-[Phone Redacted])
rtennirallv NnnM lw monthia nn 'in IRO141C1.97S-29361
([Phone Redacted]
CA/Aronberg-000420
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736058
Page 301
1 between the Palm Beach Police Department and the
2 State Attorney's Office?
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Alan
10
11
12
13
14
15 BY MR.
16
17
18
19 't at i have form objections to this line of
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. Yes, there was.
Q. And --
A. This case was originally brought to th
attention very early on in the investigation
A ethey were, you know, very gung-ho, very I o g, let's
do this, up until, up until, up until ing with
Dershowitz and the State Attorney d then it, it
all took a turn.
c Q. Were you at that m g
A. I attended one e 'n where I believe it
Dershowitz, Krischer, ohlavek.
Q.
0
questioning. And the fact that under various
Federal Rules, I believe it's 408, 410 as well
as various rules under Florida Evidence Code,
some of these discussions are protected as
potential plea negotiations. So, having said
that. ..
MR. PIKE ill
bje t to form.
Wh said during that meeting?
MR. : All right. With regard to this
f questioning, I just want to be clear
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
ctronlcally signed by cynthla MI (601-[Phone Redacted])
etrnntitally skinarllw twnthla n na 41S1 AU -MUM
([Phone Redacted]
CA/Aronberg-000421
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736059
Page 302
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 or that kind of thing.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. And what was brought
\to the relevance of whether r
BY MR.
Q. What was said during these, this meeting
that you attended?
A. Several of the girls' MySpaces were discussed.
had MySpace being the social network. They all had
MySpaces. And the girls, the girls were act ly o
had the MySpaces had inputted, you know, tailik
different things regarding alcohol us oNiadijuana use
C )
hat meeting as
these females
that had been to Jeffrey e s house while
underage used alcoho r gs? What was the point
MR.
of that?
SS: To show that the character
BY M
of the girls were not, was not to be believed.
DS:
Okay. It was specifically to attack their
ibility?
MR. PIKE: Form, move to strike.
THE WITNESS: Correct.
BY MR.
Q. So, at that point in time who was making
those arguments on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein?
I
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
chronically signed by cynthia (601-[Phone Redacted])
n,aairsllv airman lw evnthise IFSII.M. 437R.221/1
([Phone Redacted]
CA/Aronberg-000422
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736060
Appendix 2 A
C)°
r
CA/Aronberg-000423
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERIC 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736061
Page 319
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/IIIIIII
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
-vs- VOLUME III OF
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
• Related cases:.
08-80232, 08-08380,
08-80993, 08-80811,
09-80591, 09--8065.6.,
08-8038ks 5- 94
08-808 a, 04:9
09-8A -81092
?SY
Reported By:
Jeana Ricciuti, RPR, FPR, CLR
Notary Public, State of Florida
Prose Court Reporting
Job No.: 1509
*
POSITION OF
7 7
TJI R'
ECAREY
—Tuesday, April 219, 2010
10:03 - 5:12 p.m.
505 South Flagler Drive
Suite 1100
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Certified Copt :
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. ([Phone Redacted]
Electronically signed by Jeana Rica.lull (601.[Phone Redacted])
Electronically signed by Jeana Ricchs (601.[Phone Redacted]) c6082637-abe1.162ca836.bc614e314d7a
CA/Aronberg-000424
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736062
Page 401
1 or --
2 BY MR. WEINBERG:
3 Q. Well, let's start with that time, when
4 Mr. Epstein was the customer. Were any of the women
5 going to his house engaging in prostitution, in y ur
(S8 THE WITNESS: In my opinion? S.'
6 opinion?
7 MS. ARBOUR: Form.
9 BY MR. WEINBERG:
12 Q. And that includ
may)
12
A. No. *
were going to his'
10 Q. Yes.
13 house who were above 11 as below IS, correct?
14 MS. ARBO rm.
15 THE : Like I was told, people that I
16 intery at were above 18, what happened
17 between m were between two consenting adults.
18 BY MR. W N ERG:
19 And so to your mind, it's not the giving of
20 y, it's the negotiated agreement that constitutes
21
22
23
24
25
A!illit he
from simply a consensual act as long as the people who
engaged in it were both over 18?
ARBOUR: Form.
essential element that distinguishes prostitution
MS.
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. ([Phone Redacted]
Electronically signed by Jeans Mackin (601.[Phone Redacted])
Electronically signed by Jeans Fticclull (601-[Phone Redacted]) c50626374b40-452c-8836-bc614.314d7a
CA/Aronberg-000425
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736063
• •
Page 402
1 BY MR. WEINBERG:
2 Q. Correct?
3 MS. ARBOUR: Same objection.
4 THE WITNESS: The negotiation part, X for Y.
5 BY MR. WEINBERG:
6 Q. So absent the negotiation, there is
7 prostitution?
8 MS. ARBOUR: Form. C
9 THE WITNESS: No.
O
10 BY MR. WEINBERG:
11 Q. And therefore, in y4.45 Iiion, the women
12 going to see Mr. Epstein w e Ne going there pursuant
ie to a prostitution agree n rrect?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. They wp4 ng there as consenting adults or
16
17
18
19 ^^ THE WITNESS: They were going there to provide
20 he massage but, you're right, it wasn't
21 prostitution.
22 Y MR. WEINBERG:
23 Q. And in fact, had some of these girls that went
24
25 this entire case would have been a consenting massage
even consenti
prostitution?
ARBOUR:
s to do something other than
Form.
there who were under 18, had they been over 18, then
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. ([Phone Redacted]
Electronically signed by Jeans Ricelull (601-[Phone Redacted])
Electronically signed by Jeans Riccitad (601.[Phone Redacted]) c5062637-abet-452calit3Lbc614.314d7a
CA/Aronberg-000426
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736064
• •
Page 476
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
December of 2005, correct?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. So it began in March and it continued through
December of 2005, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. The first time you formalized a prob use
affidavit was May 1, 2006, correct?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And that probable cause affid i resulted
orney was several months later when the Sta
presenting a case to the gran
A. That was -- that, 1 iasco with the State
Attorney's office where Ily we. were going -to go
to the grand jury, t postponed it, and then we
were going to go c the grand jury, then we
postponed it, d
C.) So
n they said no, we want a probable
cause affidavi I submitted it as- a probable cause
affidavit
bacIceSyth grand jury --
To cut through it, there was some, to put it
i y, miscommunication between the State Attorney's
they came back and said no, we want to go
ffice and the Palm Beach Police Department?
MR. : Object to the form.
MS. ARBOUR: Form.
MR. : Mischaracterizes his testimony.
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. ([Phone Redacted]
Electronically signed by June RIcciuli (601.[Phone Redacted])
Electronically signed by Jeans Pietist' (601.[Phone Redacted]) c5062637-abel-452c-a8.38-bc6140314d7a
CA/Aronberg-000427
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736065
Page 477
1 BY MR. WEINBERG:
2 Q. Let me go back and start again. In April,
3 they told you they were going to conduct a grand jury
4 and Subpoenas went out to certain people, okay?
5 A. It was prior to April, I believe. I think we
6 were in March.
7 Q. So in March, the grand jury sub were
8 served for an April appearance. Does a ronology
9 make sense?
10 A. I think that's when t ussions were back
11 and forth about grand- jury.
12 Q. And Ms-. Jane Do as served with a grand
13
14
15
16
17
18 A.
19 And a second grand jury was thereafter
20 ened during the summer of 2006, correct, months
jury subpoena?
A.
subpoena.
Q.
correct?
I: drove S an served her with a grand jury
' eer'
A grand jury was postponed or canceled,
21 ter the first one?
22 A. Yes.
23
24 jury for
25 time and
Q. And taking that timeline, between the grand
which you subpoenaed Ms. Jane Doe 103 the first
the grand jury that ultimately returned -- was
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. ([Phone Redacted]
Electronically signed by Jean Ricatub (601480-428-9381)
Electronically signed by Jean; Fticclull (801.[Phone Redacted]) c6062637-abel4E2c4831-13c814e314d7a
CA/Aronberg-00Q428
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736066
• •
Page 484
1 written by Chief Reiter and sent to whom?
2 A. They were sent to some of -the parents of the
3 victims.
4 Q. If I represent to you that at least some of
5 those letters were dated in May of 2006, would th jog
6 your memory as to when this meeting with Spec
7 Ortiz occurred?
8 A. I believe it would have been att> tihose
9 letters.
10 Q. But before the return o State grand jury
11 indictment?
12 A. I don't believe a9ybefore the grand jury.
13 I believe it was after nd jury.
14 Q. So your b ry, therefore, would be that
15 it would be afte Po he letters and the grand jury?
16 A. Cor ect.
17 Q. You different
18 Attorney g this period, with one or more of the
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sta
Q.
alking
A.
Q.
ttorneys?
Yeah, Assistant
Which Assistant
to?
Lanna Belohlavek.
Do you recall any
conversations
State attorneys.
with the State
State attorney do you recall
conversation with
25 Ms. Belohlavek wherein you discussed whether or not your
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. ([Phone Redacted]
Electronically signed by Jeans Riccitni (601.[Phone Redacted])
Electronically signed by Jeana Medan (601.[Phone Redacted]) e5062637.abei-452e-a838-bc614,3140a
CA/Aronberg-000429
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736067
Page 485
1 witnesses were or were not victims?
2 MS. ARBOUR: Form.
3 THE WITNESS: I recall her picking and
4 choosing who she wanted to refer to as a victim.
5 Most of my conversations with her I know we
6 documented in the report.
7 BY MR. WEINBERG:
8 Q. Do you recall words to the fe at you
9 were frustrated with her because o r opinions
10 were that there was no victims case?
11 MS. ARBOUR: Form.
12 THE WITNESS: 4 ' call
13 yes.
14 BY MR. WEINBERG:
l4Sy
15 Q. And a you recall of that conversation?
16 A. I eca her, after viewing some of the
17 materials that Svere supplied to her by Dershowitz, she
18 started laim that the victims were not victims based
19 o materials that were supplied by the MySpaces.
20 O Q. The victims were not victims?
21 A. That's what she was claiming.
22 Q. And this is the State Attorney's statements to
23 you based on her investigation which included her review
24
25 Professor Alan Dershowitz?
that conversation,
of materials provided to her by Defense Counsel
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. ([Phone Redacted]
ElottronkaHy signed by Jaanalilecluti (601.280-42S-9381)
Electronically signed by Jeans Moduli (601-[Phone Redacted]) c5062637-abel-452c-ag36-bc6140314d7a
CA/Aronberg-000430
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736068
•
Page 486
1 MS. ARBOUR: Form.
2 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't consider what she did
3 her investigation. I think she just looked at
4 these girls' MySpace accounts. I wouldn't consider
5 that an investigation.
6 BY MR. WEINBERG:
7 Q. But she had in her possession at ' ime
8 your incident report?
9 MS. ARBOUR: Form.
10 THE WITNESS-: Yes.
11 BY MR. WEINBERG:
12 Q. Your probable ca a idavit?
13 MS. ARBOUR: its y
14 THE WITUE ••on't know if it was drafted
15
16
17
18 interview r many months, correct?
19 S. ARBOUR: Form.
20 THE WITNESS: Yes.
21
22 Y Q. She had the results of the search, did she
23
24
25
BY
yet.
MR.
not?
WEINBE
Q. Bute had the raw materials of your many
. WEINBERG:
A.
Q.
Yes.
She had the message pads available to her, did
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. ([Phone Redacted]
Electronically signed by Jeana Ricciull (601.[Phone Redacted])
Electronically signed by Jeana liticciutl (601.[Phone Redacted]) c6062637-abol-452c-a364x61431467a
CA/Aronberg-000431
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736069
Page 491
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Was amongst them Ms.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Who else?
5 A. I believe this was it. I think that w the
6 initial -- they were going to do it in secti ,
7 they were going to pick those 2irls to go
8 Q. And the criminal offense th as
9 investigating at the time was felony s itation?
10 MS. ARBOUR: Form.
11 THE WITNESS: I d ' w what she was
12 looking into. I kn a I
(< :: r
13 BY MR. WEINBERG:
14 Q. You and h ; . disagreements about witnesses
15 and charges, c r c
16 A. Y .
17 Q. An u had disagreements about whether or not
18 the witn s that you denominated victims and she said
19 't victims, you had disagreements over their
20 ibility, did you not?
21 A. Not over their credibility. It was over,
22 like, the MySpace pages. I had the feeling that she was
23 trying to
24 Q. I don't mean to interrupt, but I want to stick
25 to conversations and evidence and not feelings, so --
was seeking.
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. ([Phone Redacted]
Electronically signed by Jeans Ricca, (601.[Phone Redacted])
Electronically signed by Joann Ricciuti (601.[Phone Redacted]) c5082637-abel-452c-a8311-bc614•314d7a
CA/Aronberg-000432
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736070
• •
Page 492
1 MR. Go ahead and finish your answer,
2 sir. Don't let him interrupt you. You can finish
3 your answer.
4
5
6 was my --
7 BY MR. WEINBERG:
8 Q.
9 correct?
10 A. (Non-verbal response) .
11
12
1.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE WITNESS: I had the feeling that she was
trying to brush this case under the carpet. That
You believed that she was mini the case,
cQ. And you believed th f the reasons she
was minimizing the case wa review of the MySpace
pages of some of your s, correct?
A. I know th th ttitude of the State
Attorney's offic a ery pro-assisting us from the
very beginnin . e Mr. Dershowitz became involved in
the investiga stage, everything changed.
Q. et's talk about these MySpace pages for a
mint MySpace pages are an Internet site where the
sses herself would put information out there that
available to whoever accessed the site, correct?
MS. ARBOUR: Form.
THE WITNESS: MySpace is a social network that
you can basically create anything that you want to
create on a MySpace page.
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. ([Phone Redacted]
Electronically signed by Jeana Ricciuti (601.[Phone Redacted])
Electronically signed by Jeana Ricckai(601-[Phone Redacted]) c6062637-abel-462c-a836-bc814.3314d7a
CA/Aronberg-000433
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736071
• •
Page 496
1 that the case wasn't -- it wasn't -- in my eyes, it
2 wasn't any justice served.
3 BY MR. WEINBERG -:
4 Q. Your disagreements with the State Attorney's
5 charge decision led you to go outside the State 1
6
7 Mr. Epstein to Federal authorities?
8 MS. ARBOUR: Form, asked and
9 THE WITNESS: And also to see here was any
10 Federal nexus pertaining to
11 BY MR. WEINBERG:
12 Q. But you sought ine if there was a
13 Federal nexus relating rio case as a result of your
14 disagreements with t c ge decisions that were being
15 made by your Sta A o ney,
16 MS. BaLte. Form.
17
18
19
20
21
22 N (A luncheon recess was taken.)
23
24
25
correct?
THE ESS: I believe so.
toy WEINBERG: Why don't we take a break and
ave lunch.
MR. WEINBERG:
enforcement community and transmit information
jig"
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. ([Phone Redacted]
Electronically signed by Jeans Mandl (601.[Phone Redacted])
Electronitaby signed by Jeana Rice:me (801-280-428-93St) c5082537-abet-452c-a8384ic614e3t4d7a
CA/Aronberg-000434
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736072
Page 499
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119:MARRA/
JANE DOE NO. 2,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
Related cases:
08-80232, 08-08380, 08-8038
08-80993, 08-80811, 0:8-8Q8
09-80591, 09-80656, 09-8
VOLUME IV OF A
CL)
A "4-1 24
N 9 0469
. -81092
‘lAte
I 5
? S i
0
+. Reported By:
Jeana Ricciuti, RPR, FPR, CLR
Notary Public, State of Florida
Prose Court Reporting
Co) Tuesday, April 27, 2010
10:03 - 5:23 p.m.
505 South Flagler Drive
Suite 1100
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
DEPOSITION OF
CTIVE RECAREY
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
Electronically signed by Jeana RIccluti (601.[Phone Redacted])
Electronically signed by Jeana Ricelull (601-[Phone Redacted])
([Phone Redacted]
bdcd1876-c728-4320.8M-bl9ao6561291
CA/Aronberg-000435
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736073
Page 537
1 A. I'm trying to recall what we discussed. I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
served her with a subpoena and instructed her to call
the phone number that was on there to make arrangements.
Q. How long were you with her in Tallahassee on
this occasion?
A. I'd say about 40 minutes, 50 minut
Q. And did you decide that you wer f b the
person to serve the subpoena as contr
different people working under or
10 A. Yes, I am the one wh
11 warrant -- subpoenas.
12 Q. So you served
13 A. Uh-huh.
14 Q. And was
15 Tallahassee t
16 A. I spok to her also regarding some phone calls
17 that she had ceived which she felt was threatening in
18 nature.
19
20 versations?
21 A. She had received a phone call from
22 indicating to her that those thaL are with Mr. Epstein
any of the
23
24
25
Q.
ASf\he
only
the other search
subpoenas?
reason to go to
And what were the results of those
will be compensated and those that go against him
basically would be dealt with.
Q. We're talking about March or April of 2006,
• x w •••fia•- ,A.d‘r4.•
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. ([Phone Redacted]
Electronically signed.by.Jeana RicaIntl (001.[Phone Redacted])
Electronically signed by Jeans Fticciutl (601-[Phone Redacted]) bdcd1S764724432d-adO-bIllae6561291
CA/Aronberg-000436
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736074
Page 541
1 time, did she have a conversation with you regarding the
2- second subpoena's conflicting with her finals schedule?
3 A. Correct-
4 Q. And she made a phone call to you to comp
A
lain
5 about the service?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And what was the conversation b n ane Doe
8 103 and you on that occasion?
9 A. It was finals week and s.- cot not leave and
10 not take her final to come dow e grand jury. I
11 recommended that she contac ate Attorney's office
12 and make recommendations the State Attorney's
13 office.
14 Q. And did h e any followup with her to see
15 if she had be
16 the State A torn
17 No, did not.
18
19
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you learn that she had not been excused by
22 the State Attorney?
23 A. I don't think she officially came out and told
24
25
ly excused from the grand jury by
d you learn that
me that she was not excused.
she didn't show up at the
Q. But you do know that she failed to appear?
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) .832-7506
Electronically signed by Joana Ricclutl (601-[Phone Redacted])
Electronically signed by Jane Ricclull ([Phone Redacted]-9381) bcicell$76-c72o412Stict0-b190•6311291
CA/Aronberg-000437
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736075
Page 556
1 A. (Non-verbal response) .
2 Q. The time he was on work release, no request?
3 A. None.
4 Q. The time he was on probation, community
5 control?
6 A. No.
7 Q. So you've never received an FBI
-
to, in
8 any way, investigate Mr. Epstein?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Surveille Mr. Epstein?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Report to them c tJrf our knowledge of
13 Mr. Epstein's ongoing n
14 A. No.
15 Q. Same t n for the US Attorney's office:
16 Have they ev 3.n ated a call to you at any time after
17 Mr.. Epstein w to jail asking you to do anything in
18 connectio their ongoing investigation of
19
20 O Ar Absolutely not.
21 And what about Probation? Has Probation ever
22
23
24
25
asked you to initiate any surveillance or investigation
of Mr. Epstein?
A. No. Aside from that one day that I saw him
walking on the -- along South Ocean Boulevard, that was
1
1
1
1
..1••••.mL
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
Electronicalirsigned by Jeana Riceluti (601.[Phone Redacted])
Electronically signed by Jeana Riccluti (601-[Phone Redacted])
([Phone Redacted]
bdcrAtrEc728-4B2O-8cIO-b19ae656129I
CA/Aronberg-000438
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736076
Page 557
1 it. That was the only -- and I didn't even contact
2 Probation. I believe Captain Frick (phonetic) is the
3 one who contacted Probation and something Sloan
4 (phonetic) .
5 Q. Are you aware of any -- putting yours ij aside
6 and putting this one incident aside, are you re of
7 the Palm Beach Police Department having a g ing-role
8 in the investigation of Jeffrey Epstei
9 A. As far as today?
11 A. No. §2
10 Q. Yes, as of today.
12 Q. How about at the past yeaT,
13 starting with the ti he s out on work release and
14 thereafter on co 'ty ontrol --
15 A. Ther 'd o --
16 Q. - ho arrest?
17 vestigation, not that I'm aware of.
18 Q the one occasion the only time that you or
19 a y e working with you spoke to Probation about
20 Epstein's ongoing activities?
21 A. That was the only time I think
22 Q. That you were involved?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And is it the only time that you are aware
25 that anyone else has had communications to and from the
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
Electronically signed by Jeans Faceted ([Phone Redacted]-93151)
Electronically signed by Jbana Riccluti (601-[Phone Redacted])
([Phone Redacted]
bdc01876c720-432.1-8410-bleae651129I
CA/Aronberg-000439
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736077
Page 627
1 A. Yes, there was.
2 Q. How about Jane Doe 7?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. How about a girl that we haven't discuss(((ed
Ad lisfr
5 named Jane Doe 5?
6 A. No.
7 Q.
Isle
How about a girl named Jane Doe t.
8 A. No.
9 Q. How about Jane Doe
10 A. No.
11 Q. At any time durin o nvestigation, did you
12 speak to Jane Doe 5?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did you ak o a girl named Jane Doe 6?
15 A. No.
16 Q. D d y drever speak to a girl named Jane Doe 8?
17 A. No.
18 Q. u were asked some questions earlier about a
19 p i to investigator following you and pulling your
20 h I believe you said.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can you tell me more about that?
23 MR. PIKE: Form.
24 THE WITNESS: Sometime during the
25 investigation, it was discovered that we had
8?
• - --•••••••-••••••, t••••Or ri:l •
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. ([Phone Redacted]
Eloctronkally signed by Jeans Ricciull (601.280-X28.9381)
Electronically signed by Jeans RIccluti (601-280-42S-9381) bdall$78-c72•432d4d0-bisaefisei 201
CA/Aronberg-000440
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736078
Page 628
1 private investigators following myself and former
2 Chief Reiter. When I would leave work and I'd go
3 visit my children, I would notice a car two lengths
4 behind me doing the exact same moves I did. If I
5 sped up, he sped up; if I slowed down, he s o ed
6 down.
7
8 speed' limit just to see if he wou
9 cars
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Black in ami.
18
19
20
21
22 y everybody's cans were full and mine is empty.
23 MR. PIKE: Form. Move to strike.
24 BY MS. ARBOUR:
25 Q. Did you ever do any research to determine the
made several U-turns, he di
I purposely -- I purposely drove ' der the
ound. No
around us and he stayed r ht ind me. I
ame exact thing.
So it was clearly evide ' being followed.
r did manage-to i a driver's license
"cv
plate number and c
investigator.
* I was tu ly called by one of the PIs, which
r came back to the Law Office of Roy the pho
to a private
far as my trash being pulled, it became
S r
learly evident the day after Thanksgiving where
t ere is no trash pickup in my neighborhood, at my
house, the day after Thanksgiving, it's a holiday,
([Phone Redacted] PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
Electronically signed by Jeans Ft'soled (601.[Phone Redacted])
Electronically signed by Joan. Riccluti (601.[Phone Redacted])
([Phone Redacted]
bded1876-c72•432d4cf0-b19so6561291
CNAronberg-000441
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736079
O 8 BY MS. ARBOUR:
9 Q. Did you ever speak to an ep entatives of
10 that PI firm?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Do you have an o ation about who, if
13 anyone, hired them to of you?
14 A. Aside f th one phone call that came back
15 to Roy Black's
16 Q. A d th was the investigator's calling you or
17 you were cal g the investigators?
18 A. They actually called me by mistake.
yy
19 Okay. So you didn't actually speak to anyone?
20 O A. No. They asked me who I was, and I said who
21 are you, and they hung up. I had the number on my
22 caller ID. I cross referenced the phone number and it
23 came back to it.
24 Q. And to the best of your recollection, all of
25 this occurred sometime in that September to May 2006 --
Page 629
1 identity of the private investigators that you believed
2 were following you?
3 A. Yes. I did obtain -- based on their license
4 plate, I was able to obtain who they were and which PI
6 Q. Did you ever speak to any --
5 firm they represent.
7 MR. PIKE: Same objection.
([Phone Redacted]
-...r..••••••••••••••alvyaay
PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
Electronically signed by Jeans RIccluti(601-280421-133$1)
Electronically signed by June Moiled (601.[Phone Redacted])
([Phone Redacted]
bdcd1876-c72e-432d•Sd0-019sege6121if
CA/Aronberg-000442
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736080
Appendix 3 A
co S
4 9
cAthroneerg-000443
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736081
• •
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
.4c) OFFICE OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
8 -REPORT
U.S. Attorney'
Resolution f Its
Jeffrey Epstein
riN( S .
lnveiltgation into the
for the Southern District of Florida's
6-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of
Interactions with Victims during the Investigation.
November2020
NOTE: THIS REPORT CONTAINS SENSITIVE, PRIVILEGED., AND PRIVACY
ACT PROTECTED INFORMATION. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THE REPORT OR
ITS CONTENTS. WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE OFFICE. OF
PROFESSIONALBESPONSIBILITY:
CA/Aronberg-000444
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736082
• •
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Justice (Department) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)
investigated allegations that in 2007-2008, prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of Florida (USAO) improperly resolved a federal investigation into the criminal
conduct of Jeffrey Epstein by negotiating and executing a federal non-prosecution agreement
(NPA). The NPA was intended to end a federal investigation into allegations that Epstein engaged
in illegal sexual activity with girls.' OPR also investigated whether USAO prosecutors co milted
professional misconduct by failing to consult with victims of Epstein's crimes before the A was
signed or by misleading victims regarding the status of the federal investigation aft ing.
I. OVERVIEW OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Palm Beach (Florida) Police Department (PBPD) began inv ting effrey Epstein
in 2005, after the parents of a I4-year-old girl complained that Epstein ad pal r for a massage.
Epstein was a multi-millionaire financier with residences in Palm B h, ew York City, and
other United States and foreign locations. The investigation led discovery that Epstein used
personal assistants to recruit girls to provide massages to in many instances, those
massages led to sexual activity. After the PBPD brought e State Attorney's Office, a
Palm Beach County grand jury indicted Epstein, on 06, for felony solicitation of
prostitution in violation of Florida Statute § 796.07 ecause the PBPD Chief and the
lead Detective were dissatisfied with the State A dling of the case and believed that
the state grand jury's charge did not address of Epstein's conduct, they referred the
matter to the Federal Bureau of Investiga West Palm Beach for a possible federal
investigation.
The FBI brought the matters a ant U.S. Attorney (AUSA), who opened a file with
her supervisor's approval and with the wledge of then U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta.
She worked with two FBI gents t developcai abitat a federal case against Epstein and, in the course
of the investigation, they dis vered additional victims. In May 2007, the AUSA submitted to her
supervisors a draft 60-count ncnt outlining charges against Epstein. She also provided a
lengthy memorandum marizing the evidence she had assembled in support of the charges and
addressing the legal is ated to the proposed charges.
For s weeks following submission of the prosecution memorandum and proposed
indictme A's supervisors reviewed the case to determine how to proceed. At a
July 3 eeting with Epstein's attorneys, the USAO offered to end its investigation if
Epst ilty to state charges, agreed to serve a minimum of two years' incarceration,
r s a sexual offender, and agreed to a mechanism through which victims could obtain
mone damages. The USAO subsequently engaged in additional meetings and communications
with Epstein's team of attorneys, ultimately negotiating the terms of a state-based resolution of the
federal investigation, which culminated in the signing of the NPA on September 24, 2007. The
As used in this Report, including in quoted documents and statements, the word "girls" refers to females who
were under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged conduct. Under Florida law, a minor is a person under the age
of 18.
CA/Aronberg-000445
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736083
• •
NPA required Epstein to plead guilty in state court to the then-pending state indictment against
him and to an additional criminal information charging him with a state offense that would require
him to register as a sexual offender—specifically, procurement of minors to engage in prostitution,
in violation of Florida Statute § 796.03. The NPA required Epstein to make a binding
recommendation that the state court sentence him to serve 18 months in the county jail followed
by 12 months of community control (home detention or "house arrest"). The NPA also included
provisions designed to facilitate the victims' recovery of monetary damages from Epstein. In
exchange, the USAO agreed to end its investigation of Epstein and to forgo federal prosecution in
the Southern District of Florida of him, four named co-conspirators, and "any tential
co-conspirators." Victims were not informed of, or consulted about, a potential state tion or
the NPA prior to its signing.
The signing of the NM did not immediately lead to Epstein's guilty p
however. For the next nine months, Epstein deployed his extensive tea
to try to change the terms that his team had negotiated and he had appr
seeking to invalidate the entire NPA by persuading senior Departmen
federal interest at issue and the matter should be left to the di
officials. Through repeated communications with the USA
defense counsel fought the government's interpretation of
obtained review by the Department's Criminal Division
General, primarily on the issue of federal jurisdict
quintessentially state matter." After reviewing s
June 23, 2008, the Office of the Deputy An
Deputy Attorney General would not interve
his obligation under the NPA, and on Jun
the pending state indictment charging
to a criminal information chargin
Upon the joint request of the defeidant a
court immediately sentenced/Epstein t,oconsecutive terms of 12 months' incarceration on the
solicitation charge and 6 months' incarceration on the procurement charge, followed by 12 months
of community control. Epstein began serving the sentence that day, in a minimum-security Palm
Beach County facility. copy of the NPA was filed under seal with the state court.
On July 2008, victim, identified as "Jane Doe," filed in federal court in the Southern
District of Fl ency petition alleging that the government violated the Crime Victims'
Rights A 18 U.S.C. § 3771, when it resolved the federal investigation of Epstein
without su g with victims, and seeking enforcement of her CVRA rights.' In responding to
the government, represented by the USAO, revealed the existence of the NPA, but did
it to the petitioners until the court directed it to be turned over subject to a protective
ord he NPA itself remained under seal in the federal district court. After the initial filings and
heann the CVRA case was dormant for almost two years while the petitioners pursued civil
cases against Epstein.
rceration,
nent attorneys
simultaneously
s that there was no
ate law enforcement
for Department officials,
rms. They also sought and
ffice of the Deputy Attorney
at the defense insisted was "a
y the defense and the USAO, on
neral informed defense counsel that the
er. Only then did Epstein agree to fulfill
008, e appeared in state court and pled guilty to
soliitation of prostitution and, pursuant to the NPA,
rocurement of minors to engage in prostitution.
he state prosecutor, and consistent with the NPA, the
Emergency Victim's Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's (ski Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771,
Doe v. United Stoles. Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KA.M (S.D. Fla July 7, 2008). Another victim subsequently joined
the litigation as "Jane Doe 2."
CA/Aronberg-000446
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736084
• •
Soon after he was incarcerated, Epstein applied for the Palm Beach County Sheriff's work
release program, and the Sheriff approved his application. In October 2008, Epstein began
spending 12 hours a day purportedly working at the "Florida Science Foundation," an entity
Epstein had recently incorporated that was co-located at the West Palm Beach office of one of
Epstein's attorneys. Although the NPA specified a term of incarceration of 18 months, Epstein
received "gain time," that is, time off for good behavior, and he actually served less than 13 months
of incarceration. On July 22, 2009, Epstein was released from custody to a one-year term of home
detention as a condition of community control, and he registered as a sexual offender with the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement. After victims and news media filed suit in Flo ' a courts
for release of the copy of the NPA that had been filed under seal in the state court fil e judge
in September 2009 ordered it to be made public.
By mid-2010, Epstein reportedly settled multiple civil lawsuits b st him by
victims seeking monetary damages, including the two petitioners in the CV on. During
the CVRA litigation, the petitioners sought discovery from the USA w 1. ade substantial
document productions, filed lengthy privilege logs in support of its wi of documents, and
submitted declarations from the AUSA and the FBI case age' wh nducted the federal
investigation. The USAO opposed efforts to unseal variou , as did Epstein, who was
permitted to intervene in the litigation with respect to . Nevertheless, the court
ultimately ordered that substantial records relating to th esolution of the Epstein case
be made public. During the course of the litigation, t numerous rulings interpreting
the CVRA. After failed efforts to settle the case, t ss motions for summary judgment
remained pending for more than a year.
In 2017, President Donald Trump nat Acosta to be Secretary of Labor. At his
March 2017 confirmation hearing, Aco as q tioned only briefly about the Epstein case. On
April 17, 2017, the Senate confirm '_appointment as Labor Secretary.
In the decade followin e from incarceration, Epstein reportedly continued to
settle multiple civil suits br t by y, but not all, of his victims. Epstein was otherwise able
to resume his lavish lifestyle, rg avoiding the interest of the press. On November 28, 2018,
however, the Miami erald pu ished an extensive investigative report about state and federal
criminal investigations more than 12 years earlier into allegations that Epstein had coerced
girls into enga ' in s xu I activity with him at his Palm Beach estate.' The Miami Herald
reported that ' 7, A to entered into an "extraordinary" deal with Epstein in the form of the
NPA, whi Epstein to avoid federal prosecution and a potentially lengthy prison
sentence di g guilty in state court to "two prostitution charges." According to the Miami
Herald, vemment also immunized from prosecution Epstein's co-conspirators and
co rom Epstein's victims the terms of the NPA. Through its reporting, which included
inte ews
,v ,. of eight victims and information from publicly available documents, the newspaper
paint a portrait of federal and state prosecutors who had ignored serious criminal conduct by a
wealthy man with powerful and politically connected friends by granting him a "deal of a lifetime"
that allowed him both to escape significant punishment for his past conduct and to continue his
Julic K. =. "Pcrvcrsion of Justice," Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018. httos.//www coin/
ncus/local/articic220097825
iii
CA/Aro nberg-000447
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736085
• •
abuse of minors. The Miami Herald report led to public outrage and media scrutiny of the
government's actions.'
On February 21, 2019, the district court granted the CVRA case petitioners' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment, ruling that the government violated the CVRA in failing to advise the
victims about its intention to enter into the NPA.5 The court also found that letters the government
sent to victims after the NPA was signed, describing the investigation as ongoing, "mislead [sic]
the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility." The court also highlighted
the inequity of the USAO's failure to communicate with the victims while at the e time
engaging in "lengthy negotiations" with Epstein's counsel and assuring the defense e NPA
would not be "made public or filed with the court." The court ordered the p mit
additional briefs regarding the appropriate remedies. After the court's order, t r epartment
reused the USAO from the CVRA litigation and assigned the U.S. Atto • ce for the
Northern District of Georgia to handle the case for the government. Am edies sought
by the petitioners, and opposed by the governinent, was rescission A and federal
prosecution of Epstein.
On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Sou trict of New York obtained
a federal grand jury indictment charging Epstein with one n trafficking of minors and
one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of mi T indictment alleged that from
2002 until 2005, Epstein created a vast network of unl sin both New York and Florida
whom he sexually abused and exploited. Epstein s on the charges on July 6, 2019. In
arguing for Epstein's pretrial detention, prosettors as rted that agents searching Epstein's
Manhattan residence found thousands of pho of nudeand half-nude females, including at least
one believed to be a minor. The court order stein detained pending trial, and he was remanded
to the custody of the Bureau of Prisgs and d at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in
Manhattan.
Meanwhile, after publi t of 6 November 2018 Miami Herald report, the media and
Congress increasingly focu atte t on Acosta as the government official responsible for the
NPA. On July 10, 2019, A h d a televised press conference to defend his and the USAO's
actions. Acosta stated hat the a m Beach State Attorney's Office "was ready to allow Epstein to
walk free with no jail ti hing.' According to Acosta, because USAO prosecutors considered
this outcome u ccepta le, his office pursued a difficult and challenging case and obtained a
resolution th t Epste in jail, forced him to register as a sexual offender, and provided victims
with the twin monetary damages. Acosta's press conference did not end the
controv er, and on July 12, 2019, Acosta submitted to the President his resignation as
4 e.g., Ashley Coltman, "Stunning new report details Trump's labor secretary's role in plea deal for
billM sex abuser," The Business Insider, Nov. 29, 2018; Cynthia McFadden, "New Focus on Trump Labor
Seem s role in unusual plea deal for billionaire accused of sexual abuse,"NBCNightlyNews, Nov. 29, 2018; Anita
Kumar, "Trump labor secretary our of running for attorney general after Miami Herald mport," AicClatchy Washington
Bureau, Nov. 29, 2018; Emily Peck, "How Tiump's Labor Secretary Covered For A Millionaire Sex Abuser,"
Buffington Post, Nov. 29, 2018; JWie K. =I, et al., "Lawmakers issue call for investigation of serial sex abuser
Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal,"Alianti Herald. Dec. 6, 2018.
Doe v. United States. 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2019) (Opinion and Order, 9:08-80736-C1V-
Marra).
iv
CA/Aronberg-000448
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736086
•
Secretary of Labor. In a brief oral statement, Acosta explained that continued media attention on
his handling of the Epstein investigation rather than on the economy was unfair to the Labor
Department.
On August 10, 2019, Epstein was found hanging in his cell and was later pronounced dead.
The New York City Chief Medical Examiner concluded that Epstein had committed suicide.
As a result of Epstein's death, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of
New York filed a nolle prosequi to dismiss the pending indictment against Epst 'n. On
August 27, 2019, the district court held a hearing at which more than a dozen stein's
victims—including victims of the conduct in Florida that was addressed through th poke
about the impact of Epstein's crimes. The court dismissed the Epstei dm nt on
August 29, 2019.
After Epstein's death, the federal district court in Florida overs litigation
denied the petitioners their requested remedies and closed the case as oat. mong its findings,
the court concluded that although the government had violated the C he government had
asserted "legitimate and legally supportable positions through ligation," and therefore had
not litigated in bad faith. The court also noted it ex government to "honor its
representation that it will provide training to its empl the CVRA and the proper
treatment of crime victims," as well as honoring its p se t with the victims.
On September 30, 2019, CVRA petition D 1" filed in her true name a petition
for a writ of mandamus in the United States o peals for the Eleventh Circuit, seeking
review of the district court's order denyin f her requested remedies. In its responsive brief,
the government argued that "as a matter aw, legal obligations under the CVRA do not attach
prior to the government charging a t us, "the CVRA was not triggered in [the Southern
District of Florida] because no r arges were brought." Nevertheless, during oral
argument, the government con t he USAO had not been "fully transparent" with the
petitioner and had "made a rstake ausing her to believe that the case was ongoing when in
fact the NPA had been sign pril 14, 2020, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals denied
the petition, ruling tha CVRA is do not attach until a defendant has been criminally charged.
On August 7, 2020, th granted the petition for rehearing en banc and vacated the panel's
opinion; as of th ate o chi Report, a briefing schedule has been issued, and oral argument is set
for December 020.
II. T ATION AND SCOPE OF OPR'S INVESTIGATION
Miami Herald published its investigative report on November 28, 2018,
Ben Sasse, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency
'Action ederal Rights and Federal Courts, sent a December 3, 2018 letter to OPR, citing the Miami
Herald's report and requesting that OPR "open an investigation into the instances identified in this
reporting of possible misconduct by Department of Justice attorneys." On February 6, 2019, the
Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs advised Senator Sasse that OPR had opened
v
CA/Aronberg-000449
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736087
an investigation into the matter and would review the USAO's decision to resolve the federal
investigation of Epstein through the NPA.6
After the district court issued its ruling in the CVRA litigation, on February 21, 2019, OPR
included within the scope of its investigation an examination of the government's conduct that
formed the basis for the court's findings that the USAO violated the CVRA in failing to afford
victims a reasonable right to confer with the government about the NPA before the agreement was
signed and that the government affirmatively misled victims about the status of the federal
investigation.
During the course of its investigation, OPR obtained and reviewed hund ds
of records from the USAO, the FBI, and other Department components, inclu ice of
the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Division, and the Executive Offi ttorneys.
The records included emails, letters, memoranda, and investigative mat 'al OP a so collected
and reviewed materials relating to the state investigation and prosec,u ein. OPR also
examined extensive publicly available information, including depositi s, pl dings, orders, and
other court records, and reviewed media reports and interview casts, and books
relating to the Epstein case.
In addition to this extensive documentary review, ctecl more than 60 interviews
of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their su d FBI administrative personnel;
current and former USAO staff and attorneys; curre er Department attorneys and senior
managers, including a former Deputy Attorney an a former Assistant Attorney General
for the Criminal Division; and the former S and former Assistant State Attorney in
charge of the state investigation of Epstei interviewed several victims and attorneys
representing victims, and reviewed wri ons from victims, concerning victim contacts
with the USAO and the FBI.
OPR identified former ey Acosta, three former USAO supervisors, and the
AUSA as subjects of its inv stigati ased on preliminary information indicating that each of
them was involved in the decisio to resolve the case through the NPA or in the negotiations 6 5)
leading to the agreem nt. OPR ems a current or former Department attorney to be a subject of
its investigation when ividual's conduct is within the scope of OPR's review and may result
in a finding of p fess' al Misconduct. OPR reviewed prior public statements made by Acosta
and another s a. All we subjects cooperated fully with OPR's investigation. OPR requested
that all of is provide written responses detailing their involvement in the federal
investi Ep tein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and decisions relating to victim
notifi consultation. OPR received and reviewed written responses from all of the
su subsequently conducted extensive interviews of each subject under oath and before
a reporter. Each subject was represented by counsel and had access to relevant
content eous documents before the subject's OPR interview. The subjects reviewed and
provided comments on their respective interview transcripts and on OPR's draft report. OPR
6 The federal govenunem was closed from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019. After initiating its
investigation, OPR also subsequently received other letters from U.S. Senators and Representatives inquiring into the
status of the OPR investigation.
vi
CNAronberg-000450
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736088
• •
carefully considered the comments and made changes, or noted comments, as OPR deemed
appropriate; OPR did not, however, alter its findings and conclusions.
Finally, OPR reviewed relevant case law, statutes, regulations, Department policy, and
attorney professional responsibility rules as necessary to resolve the issues presented in this case
and to determine whether the subjects committed professional misconduct.
As pan of its investigation, OPR examined the interactions between state officials and the
federal investigators and prosecutors, but because OPR does not have jurisdiction er state
officials, OPR did not investigate, or reach conclusions about, their conduct regard' e state
investigation.' Because OPR's mission is to ensure that Department attorneys the
standards of professional conduct, OPR's investigation focused on the actio Q the ubject
attorneys rather than on determining the full scope of Epstein's and his ' criminal
behavior. Accordingly, OPR considered the evidence and information re a and his
assistants' conduct as it was known to the subjects at the time they a o f eir 'uties as
Department attorneys. Additional evidence and information that came light after June 30, 2008,
when Epstein entered his guilty plea under the NPA, did not aff t the s' actions prior to
that date, and OPR did not evaluate the subjects' conduc n basis of that subsequent
information.
OPR's investigation occurred approximately I ea aQbr most of the significant events
relating to the USAO's investigation of Epstein, th Epstein's guilty plea. As a result,
many of the subjects and witnesses were unab t I the details of events or their own or
others' actions occurring in 2006-2008, su nations, meetings, or documents they
reviewed at the times However, OPR's ev ono he subjects' conduct was aided significantly
by extensive, contemporaneous emails ong prosecutors and communications between the
government and defense counsel. ds often referred to the interactions among the
participants and described import s and, in some instances, the bases for them.
DI. OVERVIEW OF O YTICAL FRAMEWORK
OPR's prima missiolPtSrto ensure that Department attorneys perform their duties in
accordance with the hi fessional standards, as would be expected of the nation's principal
law enforcement gene Accordingly, OPR investigates allegations of professional misconduct
against cu r fonn Department attorneys related to the exercise of their authority to
Law E
2019, Florida Governor Ron DeSamis announced that he had directed the Florida Department of
to open an investigation into the conduct of state authorities relating to Epstein As reported, the
ocuses on Epstein's state plea agreement and the Palm Beach County work release program.
PR was cognizant that Acosta and the three managers all left the USA0 during, or not long after resolution
of, the Epstein cast, while tie AUSA remained with the USAO until mid-2019. Moreover, as the line prosecutor in
the Epstein investigation and also as co-counsel in the CVRA litigation until the USAO was recused from Out
litigation in early 2019, the AUSA had continuous access to the USAO documentary record and numerous occasions
to review these materials in the course of her official duties. Additionally, in responding to OPR's request fora written
response, and in preparing to be interviewed by OPR, the AUSA was able to refresh her recollection with these
materials to an extent not possible for the other subjects, who were provided with relevant documents by OPR in
preparation for their interviews.
vii
CA/Aronberg-000451
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736089
• •
investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice, OPR also has jurisdiction to investigate allegations
of misconduct against Department law enforcement agents when they relate to a Department
attorney's alleged professional misconduct.
In its investigations, OPR determines whether a clear and unambiguous standard governs
the challenged conduct and whether a subject attorney violated that standard. Department
attorneys are subject to various legal obligations and professional standards in the performance of
their duties, including the Constitution, statutes, standards of conduct imposed by attorney
licensing authorities, and Department regulations and policies. O19k finds miscondu when it
concludes by a preponderance of the evidence that a subject attorney violated suc tandard
intentionally or recklessly. Pursuant to OPR's analytical framework, when OPR c u that
(I) no clear and unambiguous standard governs the conduct in question or (2) t ect id not
intentionally or recklessly violate the standard that governs the conduct, the es that the
subject's conduct does not constitute professional misconduct. In some c ay conclude
that a subject attorney's conduct does not satisfy the elements n a professional
misconduct finding, but that the circumstances warrant another findin cases, OPR may
conclude that a subject attorney exercised poor judgment, mad nu , or otherwise acted
inappropriately under the circumstances. OPR may also de 4 that the subject attorney's
conduct was appropriate under the circumstances.10
IV. ISSUES CONSIDERED
In this investigation, OPR considered
the negotiation, execution, and implementati
interactions with Epstein's victims and ad
of issues are described below and are a
A. The Negotiation
In evaluating wheth
considered whether any of
professional responsibility rule
considered whether th
of criminal char s, (3)
S n'Scl sets of allegations. The first relates to
A. The second relates to the USAO's
to e requirements of the CVRA. The two sets
rately in this Report.
and Implementation of the NPA
he subjects committed professional misconduct, OPR
A's provisions violated a clear or unambiguous statute,
tandard, or Department regulation or policy. In particular, OPR
olated standards relating to (I) charging decisions, (2) declination
red or non-prosecution agreements, (4) plea agreements, (5) grants
9 28 (ax l). OPR has authority to investigate the professional conduct of attorneys oecuning
during the by the Department, regardless of whether the attorney left the Department before or during
OPR's Over its 45-year history, OPR has routinely investigated the conduct of former Department
attorney h former Deparunent attorneys cannot be disciplined by the Department, OPR's determination that
a t ment attorney violated state rules of professional conduct for attorneys could result in a referral to an
appro Ic state attorney disciplinary authority. Furtherntore, findings resulting from investigations of the conduct
of Dena merit attorneys, even former employees, may assist Department managers in supervising future cases.
10 In some instances, OPR declines to open an investigation based upon a review of the initial complaint or after
a preliminary inquiry into the matter. In December 2010, one of the attorneys representing victims in the CVRA
litigation raised allegations that Epstein may have exerted improper influence over the federal criminal investigation
and that the USAO had deceived the victims of Epstein's crimes about the existence of the NPA. Pursuant to its
standard policy, OPR declined to open an investigation into those allegations at that time in deference to the
then-pending CVRA litigation.
viii
CA/Aro nberg-000452
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736090
• •
of immunity, or (6) the deportation of criminal aliens. The potentially applicable standards that
OPR considered as to each of these issues are identified and discussed later in this Report. OPR
also examined whether the evidence establishes that any of the subjects were influenced to enter
into the NPA, or to include in the NPA terms favorable to Epstein, because of an improper motive,
such as a bribe, political consideration, personal interest, or favoritism. OPR also examined and
discusses in this Report significant events that occurred after the NPA was negotiated and signed
that shed additional light on the USAO's handling of the Epstein investigation.
B. The District Court's Conclusion That the USAO Violated the CVRA ,c
i
To address the district court's adverse judicial findings, OPR assessed the manner; tent,
and timing of the government's interactions with victims both before and after the NP was
signed, including victim notification letters issued by the USAO and the„ FBI and interviews
conducted by the USAO. OPR considered whether any of the subject attorneys violated any clear
and unambiguous standard governing victim consultation or notificaribn. OPR examined the
government's lack of consultation with the victims before the NPA *as signed, as well as the
circumstances relating to the district court's finding that the USACkaftinnatiVely misled Epstein's
victims about the status of the federal investigation after the N,1 w signed.
V. OPR'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
OPR evaluated the conduct of each subjec 7 ered his or her individual role in
various decisions and events. Acosta, however,dn the pivotal decision to resolve the federal
investigation of Epstein through a state-basecIplea'and either developed or approved the terms of
the initial offer to the defense that set the beginning point for the subsequent negotiations that led
to the NPA. Although Acosta did not sign the NPA, he participated in its drafting and approved
it, with knowledge of its terms. During his OPR interview, Acosta acknowledged that he approved
the NPA and accepted responsibility/lot -it. Therefore, OPR considers Acosta to be responsible for
the NPA and for the actions of the btjter Objects who implemented his decisions. Acosta's overall
responsibility for the government's interactions or lack of communication with the victims is less
clear, but Acosta affirmatively made certain decisions regarding victim notification, and OPR
evaluates his conduct % ith respect to those decisions.
A. ¶jndingsiand Conclusions Relating to the NPA
With resp to all five subjects of OPR's investigation, OPR concludes that the subjects
did not comlint Afessional misconduct with respect to the development, negotiation, and
approval of thei NPA. Under OPR's framework, professional misconduct requires a finding that a
subject ‘attnrfiey intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard governing
the conduct at issue. OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard that required Acosta to indict
Epstein on federal charges or that prohibited his decision to defer prosecution to the state.
Furthermore, none of the individual terms of the NPA violated Department or other applicable
standards.
As the U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the "plenary authority" under established federal law and
Department policy to resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate, as long as his
decision was not motivated or influenced by improper factors. Acosta's decision to decline to
ix
CA/Aronberg-000453
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736091
• •
initiate a federal prosecution of Epstein was within the scope of his authority, and OPR did not
find evidence that his decision was based on corruption or other impermissible considerations,
such as Epstein's wealth, status, or associations. Evidence shows that Acosta resisted defense
efforts to have the matter returned to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed
appropriate, and he refused to eliminate the incarceration and sexual offender registration
requirements. OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta's "breakfast meeting" with one
of Epstein's defense counsel in October 2007 led to the NPA, which had been signed weeks earlier,
or to any other significant decision that benefited Epstein. The contemporaneous records show
that USAO managers' concerns about legal issues, witness credibility, and the impact of trial on
the victims led them to prefer a pre-charge resolution and that Acosta's concerns ab proper
role of the federal government in prosecuting solicitation crimes resulted in his ren or a
state-based resolution. Accordingly, OPR does not find that Acosta engag rofessional
misconduct by resolving the federal investigation of Epstein in the way he t the other
subjects committed professional misconduct through their implementatio s decisions.
Nevertheless, OPR concludes that Acosta's decision to resol the eral investigation
through the NPA constitutes poor judgment. Although this d • 'on within the scope of
Acosta's broad discretion and OPR does not find that it resul improper factors, the NPA
was a flawed mechanism for satisfying the federal interest the government to open its
investigation of Epstein. In Acosta's view, the federal s role in prosecuting Epstein
was limited by principles of federalism, under which d ent authority of the state should
be recognized, and the federal responsibility in thi it tt as to serve as a "backstop" to state
authorities by encouraging them to do more. a Acosta failed to consider the difficulties
inherent in a resolution that relied heavily on at merous state officials over whom he had
no authority; he resolved the federal invatigation efore significant investigative steps were
completed; and he agreed to severalAunusual and problematic terms in the NPA without the
consideration required under the • cunntances In sum, Acosta's application of federalism
principles was too expansive, W vi w of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too
narrow, and his understandin t t system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use
the NPA. Furthermore, b se A a assumed a significant role in reviewing and drafting the
NPA and the other three subj o were supervisors left the USAO, were transitioning to other
jobs, or were absent a nail junctures, Acosta should have ensured more effective coordination
and communication du negotiations and before approving the final NPA. The NPA was a
unique resolutiyrt and o that required greater oversight and supervision than Acosta provided.
B. p and Conclusions Relating to the Government's Interactions with
teams
further concludes that none of the subject attorneys committed professional
mis duct with respect to the government's interactions with victims. The subjects did not have
a clear nd unambiguous duty under the CVRA to consult with victims before entering into the
NPA because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation without a federal criminal
charge. Significantly, at the time the NPA was signed, the Department did not interpret CVRA
rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed, and the federal courts had not
established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before criminal charges were
brought. In addition, OPR did not find evidence that the lack of consultation was for the purpose
of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the lack of consultation was part of a series of government
x
CA/Aronberg-000454
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736092
• •
interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the government's
treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is contradictory to the
Department's mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of a crime endure.
OPR determined that none of the subjects was responsible for communications sent to
certain victims after the NPA was signed that described the case as "under investigation" and that
failed to inform them of the NPA. The letters were sent by an FBI administrative employee who
was not directly involved in the investigation, incorporated standard form language used by the
FBI when communicating with victims, and were not drafted or reviewed by the bjects.
Moreover, the statement that the matter was "under investigation" was not false use the
government in fact continued to investigate the case in anticipation that Epstein 1611
the terms of the NPA. However, the letters risked misleading the victims and cons to victim
frustration and confusion by failing to provide important information ab tus of the
investigation. The letters also demonstrated a lack of coordination betty- ral agencies
responsible for communicating with Epstein's victims and showed tention to and
oversight regarding communication with victims.
After the NPA was signed, Acosta elected to defer tate Attorney the decision
whether to notify victims about the state's plea hearing pu state's own victim's rights
requirements. Although Acosta's decision was withi rity and did not constitute
professional misconduct, OPR concludes that Acosta rc r judgment when he failed to
vestigation about which the USA() had *o
‘make certain that the state intended to and would ims identified through the federal
investigation about the state plea hearing. His d sr acorns uninformed about an important
proceeding that resolved the federal investi
communicated with victims for months. u mately created the misimpression that the
Department intentionally sought to sile the ims. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were
made aware of a court proceeding t ted to their own cases, and thus he failed to ensure
that victims were treated with fo to and dignity.
OPR concludes that tleiecis to postpone notifying victims about the terms of the NPA
after it was signed and the omission of information about the NPA during victim interviews and
conversations with victims' attorneys in 2008 do not constitute professional misconduct.
Contemporaneous r w that these actions were based on strategic concerns about creating
impeachment ev cote at pstein's victims had financial motives to make claims against him,
evidence that Id be against victims at a trial, and were not for the purpose of silencing
victims. , the failure to reevaluate the strategy prior to interviews of victims and
discussi ictims' attorneys occurring in 2008 led to interactions that contributed to
victimQ that the government was intentionally concealing information from them.
er examining the full scope and context of the government's interactions with victims,
0PR aeheludes that the government's lack of transparency and its inconsistent messages led to
victims feeling confused and ill-treated by the government; gave victims and the public the
misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel to keep the NPA secret
from the victims; and undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting agreement. The
overall result of the subjects' anomalous handling of this case understandably left many victims
feeling ignored and frustrated and resulted in extensive public criticism. In sum, OPR concludes
xi
CA/Aronberg-000455
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736093
• •
that the victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the
Department.
VI. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
The Report is divided into three chapters. In Chapter One, OPR describes the relevant
federal, state, and local law enforcement entities involved in investigating Epstein's criminal
conduct, as well as the backgrounds of the five subjects and their roles in the events in question
OPR provides a brief profile of Epstein and identifies the defense attorneys who interacted with
the subjects.
In Chapter Two, OPR sets forth an extensive account of events relating the federal
investigation of Epstein. The account begins with the initial complaint in March 20(4._by a young
victim and her parents to the local police—a complaint that launched an inveStigatiOn hy local law
enforcement authorities—and continues through the mid-2006 opening,_Of the federal
investigation; the September 2007 negotiation and signing of the I*A; Epstein's subsequent
efforts to invalidate the NPA through appeals to senior DepartmentrofficialeEpstein's June 2008
guilty plea in state court; and, finally, efforts by the AUSA to ensile Epstein's compliance with
the terms of the NPA during his incarceration and until his term of home detention ended in July
2010. After describing the relevant events, OPR analyzes- e,professional misconduct allegations
relating to the decisions made regarding the develo ' entsrti execution of the NPA. OPR \90describes the relevant standards and sets forth its fl di s conclusions regarding the subjects'
conduct.
Chapter Three concerns the govern
findings regarding the CVRA. OPR cribe „the relevant events and analyzes the subjects'
conduct in light of the pertinent standt‘ls -__, K
.7 OPR sets forth the extensiie#ctuar detail provided in Chapters Two and Three, including
internal USAO and Departcent cOhnnunications, because doing so is necessary for a full
understanding of the subjectsKactions and of the bases for OPR' s conclusions.
's infractions with victims and the district court's
xii
CA/Aronberg-000456
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736094
• •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. OVERVIEW OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND
II. THE INITIATION AND SCOPE OF OPR'S INVESTIGATION
III. OVERVIEW OF OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK vii
IV. ISSUES CONSIDERED viii
A. The Negotiation, Execution, and Implementation of the NPA viii
B. The District Court's Conclusion That the USAO Violated the C ix
V. OPR'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ix
A. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the NPA ix
B. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the Government'~~ter ttons
with Victims vv x
VI. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT xii
CHAPTER ONE: SIGNIFICANT ENTITIES AND IND 1
I. THE FEDERAL AND LOCAL LAW ENFO AGENCIES 1
A. The Department of Justice, the U e s Office for the
Southern District of Florida, t I Bureau of Investigation 1
B. The State and Local Law Agencies 4
IL THE SUBJECT ATTORNEY IR ROLES IN THE EPSTEIN CASE 4
III. JEFFREY EPSTEIN A NSE ATTORNEYS 8
A. Jeffrey Epstei 8
B. Epstein's Def omeys 8
CHAPTER TWO: 14-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
PART ONE: F TU ACKGROUND 11
I. OVE 11
2 r 5 - MAY 2006: EPSTEIN IS INVESTIGATED BY THE PALM
OLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE PALM BEACH COUNTY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 11
The Initial Allegations and the PBPD Investigation 11
B. The State Attorney's Office Decides to Present the Case to a State
Grand Jury 14
C. Florida State Procedure for Bringing Criminal Charges 15
D. PBPD Chief Reiter Becomes Concerned with the State Attorney's Office's
Handling of the State Investigation and Seeks a Federal Investigation 16
CA/Aronberg-000457
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736095
III. THE FBI AND THE USAO INVESTIGATE EPSTEIN, AND THE
DEFENSE TEAM ENGAGES WITH THE USAO 16
A. May 2006 — February 2007: The Federal Investigation Is Initiated,
and the USAO Opens a Case File 16
I. The PBPD Presents the Matter to the FBI and the USAO 17
2. May 2006: The USAO Accepts the Case and Opens a Case File 18
3. July 14, 2006: Villafaila Informs Acosta and Sloman about the C 18
4. Late July 2006: The State Indicts Epstein, and the USAO
Moves Forward with a Federal Investigation
5. October 2006 — February 2007: Epstein's Defense C
AS , .20
Initiate Contact with Villaftuia, Lourie, and Sloman,
Press for a Meeting 22
6. February 2007: Defense Counsel Meet with Lo
Villafaha and Present the Defense Objecti eral Case 24
B. February — May 2007: Villafaha and the FBI Investigate;
Villafaha Drafts a Prosecution Memorand Indictment
for USAO Managers to Review 24
C. May — June 2007: Miami Manag sr e Prosecution Memorandum
and Proposed Charges 4 27
D.
E. June 2007: Villafah
F. The June 26, 200
Defense Counsel Seek a M
Villafaha Opposes
IV. ACOSTA DECIDES
enior USAO Managers, which
is the Prosecution Memorandum
ith Defense Counsel
EPSTEIN A TWO-YEAR STATE PLEA TO
30
33
33
RESOLVE THE FEDIRALJINVESTIGATION 35
A. June —
which t se Rejects 36
State-based Resolution 37
O+ Proposed State Resolution 40
Epstein's Palm Beach Home, but the Defense Team Opposes Her Efforts
Villafana Attempts to Obtain the Computer Equipment Missing from
July 2007: Villafaha and Menchel Disagree about the
45
C. July 2007: The Defense Continues Its Efforts to Stop the
Federal Investigation 47
D. Acosta Decides on a Resolution That Includes a Two-Year Term of
Incarceration
2007: The USAO Proposes a State Plea Resolution,
sta's Explanation for His Decision to Pursue a
48
I . The July 26, 2007 Meeting in Miami 48
xiv
CA/Aronberg-000458
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736096
• •
2. The Subjects' Explanations for the Decision to Offer Epstein
a Sentence with a Two-Year Term of Incarceration 49
E. Villafana Drafts a "Term Sheet" Listing the Requirements of a Potential
Agreement with the Defense 51
V. THE USAO PRESENTS EPSTEIN WITH KEY TERMS OF A DEAL: PLEAD
GUILTY TO STATE CHARGES REQUIRING A TWO-YEAR TERM OF
INCARCERATION AND SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION, AND AGREE
TO A MEANS FOR THE VICTIMS TO OBTAIN MONETARY DAMAGES .. 53
A. July 31, 2007: The USAO Presents Its Proposal to the Defense Tea
which Makes a Counteroffer 54
B. In an August 3, 2007 Letter, the USAO States That a Two-Y
Imprisonment Is the Minimum That Will Vindicate the F 55
C. August — September 2007: Epstein Hires Additional A
Meet with Acosta 59
1. Acosta Agrees to Meet with Epstein's rneys 59
2. Leading to the Meeting with Defen vestig,ative
Steps Are Postponed, and the De ues to Oppose
Villafaha's Efforts to Obtain the Evidence
3. September 7, 2007: Acos
FBI Supervisors Meet t s Attorneys Starr, Lefkowitz,
and 62
60
VI. SEPTEMBER 2007: THE P
PROCESS, THE REQUIRE IMPRISONMENT IS REDUCED 63
A. The Incarceratio I educed from 24 Months to 20 Months 63
B. September 12 e USAO and Defense Counsel Meet with
the State Atto 64
C. The Ev Does Not Clearly Show Why the Term of Incarceration
W s R from 24 Months to 20 Months to 18 Months 66
D. Parti Continue to Negotiate but Primarily Focus on a Potential Plea
ral Charges 68
e Parties Appear to Reach Agreement on a Plea to Federal Charges 72
Defense Counsel Offers New Proposals Substantially Changing the
Terms of the Federal Plea Agreement, which the USAO Rejects 73
Villafana and Lowrie Recommend Ending Negotiations, but Acosta
Urges That They "Try to Work It Out" 76
H. Acosta Edits the Federal Plea Agreement, and Villafaila Sends a
Final Version to the Defense 77
AO Attorneys, and
TIONS INTENSIFY, AND IN THE
xv
CA/Aronberg-000459
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736097
• •
I. The Defense Rejects the Federal Plea Agreement, Returns to,the NPA
"State-Only" Resolution, and Begins Opposing the Sexual Offender
Registration Requirement 78
J. The USAO Agrees Not to Criminally Charge "Potential Co-Conspirators" 79
K. The USAO Rejects Defense Efforts to Eliminate the Sexual Offender
Registration Requirement 81
L. The Defense Adds a Confidentiality Clause 83
VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007: ACOSTA MAKES FINAL EDITS, AND THE
NPA IS SIGNED . 84
VIII. POST-NPA NEGOTIATIONS 87
A. September — October 2007: Sloman's Concerns about Sel
Attorney Representative Lead to a Proposed NPA Addegdfm 87
B. October 12, 2007: Acosta and Defense Attorney Lefko
Meet for Breakfast W 89
C. Acosta Agrees to the Defense Request to Pos ein's Guilty Plea;
the Parties Continue to Negotiate Issues • e Attorney
Representative and Finally Reach Agr e NPA Addendum 91
D. Epstein Further Delays His Guilty 94
E. Epstein Seeks Departmental R t o NPA's § 2255 Provision
Relating to Monetary Dann or t ictims 94
F. Despite Affirming the I De e Counsel Intensify Their Challenges
to It and Accuse Vill roper Conduct 98
007: Staff and Lefkowitz Send to
`Ethics Opinions" Complaining about
Ligation and Villafana 98
2. : s a Resu of the Starr and Lefkowitz Submissions, the New
V • riminal Chief Begins a Full Review of the Evidence,
99
99
Acosta Agrees to Meet Again with Defense Counsel
?c, The Defense Notifies Acosta That It May Pursue a Department
Review of the USAO's Actions
+ Who
Acosta Attempts to Revise the NPA § 2255 Language concerning
Monetary Damages, but the Defense Does Not Accept It 100
5. January 7, 2008: Acosta and Sloman Meet with
Makes Additional Allegations of USAO Misconduct 101
6. Acosta Asks CEOS to Review the Evidence 102
IX. FEBRUARY — JUNE 2008: THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW 103
A. February — May 15, 2008: Review by CEOS and the Criminal Division 104
1. December
Acos
the F
xvi
CNAronberg-000460
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736098
• •
B. May — June 23, 2008: Review by the Office of the Deputy
Attorney General 108
X. JUNE 2008 - JUNE 2009: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS PLEAS AND
SERVES HIS CUSTODIAL SENTENCE 110
A. June 30, 2008: Epstein Enters His Guilty Pleas in State Court 111
B. Epstein Is Placed on Work Release 113
117 XI. POST-RELEASE DEVELOPMENTS
PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS
OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
A. The United States Attorneys' Manual
119
119
120
120
1. USAM Provisions Relating to the Initiation and ocli don
of a Federal Prosecution 120
2. USAM § 9-2.03 I : The Petite Policy.. 122
3. USAM Provisions Relating to PI ts 123
4. USAM Provisions Relating to o tion Agreements 124
5. USAM Provisions Relati t t of Immunity 125
6. USAM/C.F.R. Provis ss R i g to Financial Conflicts of Interest 125
B. Other Department Polici 125
1. Department P t ting to the Disposition of Charges 125
2. Departm elating to Deportation of Criminal Miens 127
C. Case Law 127
1. Pros Discretion 127
2. eement Promises of Leniency towards a Third Party 128
D. 9Cate Bar ules 129
FRPC 4-1.1— Competence 130
FRPC 4-1.3 — Diligence 130
FRPC 4-4.1 — Candor in Dealing with Others 130
4. FRPC 4-8.4 - Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice 131
PART THREE: ANALYSIS 133
1. OVERVIEW 133
11 ACOSTA REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE TERMS OF THE NPA AND IS
ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT 133
xvii
CA/Aronberg-000461
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736099
• •
OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND
UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR
STANDARD, OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN
NEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA 134
A. U.S. Attorneys Have Broad Discretion to Resolve Investigations or
Cases as They Deem Appropriate, and Acosta's Decision to Decline
to Prosecute Epstein Federally Does Not Constitute Professional
Misconduct 135
B. No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Precluded Acosta's Use of a
Non-Prosecution Agreement to Resolve the Federal Investigation
of Epstein 136
C. The NPA's Individual Provisions Did Not Violate Any Clear
Unambiguous Standards 137
1. Acosta Had Authority to Approve an Agreemen at equired
Epstein to Plead to Offenses Resulting in a Term of
Incarceration 137
2. The USAO's Agreement Not to Pro to entified "Potential
Co-Conspirators" Did Not Viol a d Unambiguous
Department Policy 139
3. The NPA Did Not Viola' me t Policy Relating to
Deportation of Crimin 140
IV. THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ES H AT THE SUBJECTS WERE
INFLUENCED BY IMPROPE T TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA
TERMS FAVORABLE TO R TO OTHERWISE EXTEND
BENEFITS TO EPSTE 140
A. OPR Found Evid of Criminal Corruption, Such as Bribery, Gratuity,
or Illegal Poli l ersonal Consideration 141
B. Conte
Did Not
neous Written Records and Witness and Subject Interviews
Evidence Establishing That the Subjects Were
Influenced by Epstein's Status, Wealth, or Associations 142
The Contemporaneous Records Did Not Reveal Evidence
Establishing That the NPA Resulted from Improper Factors 142
+
The Subjects Asserted That They Were Motivated by
Reasonable Strategic and Policy Considerations, Not
Improper Influences 143
3. Subject and Witness Interviews and Contemporaneous Records
Identified Case-Specific Considerations Relating to Evidence,
Legal Theories, Litigation Risk, and a Trial's Potential Impact
on Victims 144
C. Other Significant Factors Are Inconsistent with a Conclusion That
the Subjects' Actions Were Motivated by Improper Influences 149
xviii
CA/Aronberg-000462
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736100
• •
D. OPR Does Not Find That the Subjects' Preexisting Relationships with
Defense Counsel, Decisions to Meet with Defense Counsel, and Other
Factors Established That the Subjects Acted from Improper Influences or
Provided Improper Benefits to Epstein 150
1. The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects Extended
Any Improper Benefit to Epstein because of Their Preexisting
Relationships with His Attorneys 150
2. The Subjects Asserted That Their Relationships with Defense
Counsel Did Not Influence Their Actions A 151
E. The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects' Meetings wi
Defense Counsel Were Improper Benefits to Epstein 155
1. The Evidence Shows That the Subjects' Decisions to
Epstein's Legal Team Were Warranted by Strat rations 155
2. The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta oti led a
Deal Favorable to Epstein over Breakfast ense Counsel 160
F. Villafafia's Emails with Defense Attorney L
Negotiations Do Not Establish That Villa
Intended to Give Epstein Preferential T
Favoritism or Other Improper Influe
G. The Evidence Does Not Establi
Agreed to the NPA's Provisi
Co-conspirators" in Order t
or Other Influential A
ring the NPA
a Subjects,
Were Motivated by
ta, Lourie, or Villafarla
g Not to Prosecute "Potential
ny of Epstein's Political, Celebrity,
163
166
H. OPR's Investigatio eveal Evidence Establishing That Epstein
Cooperated in a Investigations or Received Special Treatment
on That Basis 168
V. ACOSTA EXERCIS R JUDGMENT BY RESOLVING THE FEDERAL
INVESTIGAT THROUGH THE NPA 169
A. Acosta's sion to Resolve the Federal Investigation through a State Plea
er Te s Incorporated into the NPA Was Based on a Flawed Application
e Petite Policy and Federalism Concerns, and Failed to Consider the
cant Disadvantages of a State-Based Resolution 170
~Jhe Assessment of the Merits of a Potential Federal Prosecution Was
Undermined by the Failure to Obtain Evidence or Take Other Investigative
Steps That Could Have Changed the Complexion of the Case 175
C. OPR Was Unable to Determine the Basis for the Two-Year Term of
Incarceration, That It Was Tied to Traditional Sentencing Goals, or
That It Satisfied the Federal Interest in the Prosecution 179
D. Acosta's Decisions Led to Difficulties Enforcing the NPA 182
E. Acosta Did Not Exercise Sufficient Supervisory Review over the Process 182
xix
ONAronberg-000463
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736101
CHAPTER THREE: ISSUES RELATING TO THE GOVERNMENT'S INTERACTIONS
AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH VICTIMS 189
PART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND 189
1. OVERVIEW 189
H. THE CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 189
A. History 189
B. Enumerated Rights 191
HI. THE DEPARTMENT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CVRA'S DEFINI
"CRIME VICTIM" AT THE TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATI 192
A. April I, 2005 Office of Legal Counsel "Preliminary Review" 192
B. 2005 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witn 193
IV. USA0 AND FBI VICTIM/WITNESS NOTIFICATION PRAC T THE
TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION 194
A. USAO Training 194
B. The Automated Victim Notification Syst 195
C. FBI Victim Notification Pamphlets.. 196
V. THE INTRODUCTORY USAO AND TO VICTIMS 196
A. August 2006: The FBI Victi oh on Letters 196
B. August 2006: The USA to Victims 198
C. USAO and FBI Let d Delivered 200
VI. AUGUST 2006 — SEP 7: FBI AND USAO CONTACTS WITH
VICTIMS BEFORE 200
A. The Case Age Villafafia Solicit Some Victims' Opinions about
kResolv* the Federal Investigation 201 it ty
B. Before t A Is Signed, Villafafia Expresses Concern That Victims
ve No een Consulted 202
July 2007: Villafafia's Email Exchanges with Menchel 202
Villafana Asserts That Her Supervisors Gave Instructions Not
to Consult Victims about the Plea Discussions, but Her Supervisors
Do Not Currently Recall Such Instructions 204
September 6, 2007: Villafafia Informs Sloman, Who Informs
Acosta, of Oosterbaan's Opinion That Consultation with Victims
Was Required 204
VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 - JUNE 30, 2008: AFTER THE NPA IS SIGNED, THE
USAO MAKES VARIOUS VICTIM NOTIFICATION DECISIONS 206
xx
CAffironberg-000464
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736102
•
A. September — October 2007: The Case Agents Notify Some Victims about
the NPA, but Stop When the Case Agent Becomes Concerned about
Potential Impeachment 207
B. October 2007: Defense AttorneysObject to Government Victim
Notifications 210
C. October — November 2007: The FBI and the USAO Continue to
Investigate, and the FBI Sends a Notice Letter to One Victim Stating
That the Case is "Under investigation" 211
D. The USAO Informs the Defense That It Intends to Notify Victims by
Letter about Epstein's State Plea Hearing and the Resolution of t
Investigation, but the Defense Strongly Objects to the Notifi • 212
E. December 19, 2007: Acosta Advises the Defense That the
Defer to the State Attorney the Decision Whether to No ' of the
State Plea Hearing, but the USAO Would Notify Them the ederal
Resolution, "as Required by Law" 216
F. January — June 2008: While the Defense Pres
Department in an Effort to Undo the NPA,
Continue Investigating Epstein 220
1. Villafana Prepares to Conta ch Anticipation That
Epstein Will Breach the 220
2. The FBI Uses VNS F to Re-Establish Contact with
Victims 221
3. Villafafia, the t e CEOS Trial Attorney Interview Victims 224
4. February — a h 8: Villafafia Takes Additional Steps to
Prepar a ution of Epstein, Arranges for Pro Bono
Atto s fo ctims, and Cautions about Continued Delay 227
5. March — I 2008: Villafana Continues to Prepare for Filing
Charges 227
VIII. USAO SUPER • RS CONSIDER CVRA OBLIGATIONS IN AN UNRELATED
LIGHT OF A NEW FIFTH CIRCUIT OPINION 228
IX. J 08. LAFAR rit A'S PRE-PLEA CONTACTS w THE
ATTOR
l:"E
Y REPRESENTING THE VICTIMS WHO LATER BECAME
T RA PETITIONERS 229
Xr\ s\- 1UNE 2008: EFFORTS TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT THE JUNE 30, 2008
PLEA HEARING 231
XL JUNE 30, 2008: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS GUILTY PLEAS IN A STATE
COURT HEARING AT WHICH NO VICTIMS ARE PRESENT 234
XII. SIGNIFICANT POST-PLEA DEVELOPMENTS 235
A. Immediately After Epstein's State Guilty Pleas, Villafafia Notifies Some
Victims' Attorneys 235
xxi
peal to the
the USAO
CA/Aronberg-000465
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736103
•
B. July 7, 2008: The CVRA Litigation Is Initiated 236
C. July 2008: Villafatia Prepares and Sends a Victim Notification Letter
to Listed Victims 237
D. July — August 2008: The FBI Sends the Victim Notification Letter to
Victims Residing Outside of the United States 238
E. August — September 2008: The Federal Court Orders the USAO to
Disclose the NPA to Victims, and the USAO Sends a Revised Victim
Notification Letter 239
F. 2010 — 2011: Department and Congressional Actions Regarding
Interpretation of the CVRA 241
242
PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS 247
I. STATUTORY PROVISIONS 247
A. The CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 247
B. The Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of A), 34 U.S.C. § 20141,
Services to Victims (formerly cited as 42 1 7) 248
II. DEPARTMENT POLICY: THE 2005 ATT RAL GUIDELINES
FOR VICTIM AND WITNESS ASSIST GUIDELINES) 249
III. FLORIDA RULES OF PROFESSIO CT 253
A. FRPC 4-4.1 — Candor in D in 'th Others 253
B. FRPC 4-8.4 — Condu "al to the Administration of Justice 253
PART THREE: ANALYSIS 255
I. OVERVIEW 255
THE SUBJECTS DID OLATE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS
STANDARD B NTERING INTO THE NPA WITHOUT CONSULTING
THE VICTIMS. r 255
A. the Ti e, No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Required the USAO
ify Victims Regarding Case-Related Events until after the Filing
f Criminal Charges 256
PR Did Not Find Evidence Establishing That the Lack of Consultation
TTERS SENT TO VICTIMS BY THE FBI WERE NOT FALSE
Was Intended to Silence Victims 258
STATEMENTS BUT RISKED MISLEADING VICTIMS ABOUT THE
STATUS OF THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION 261
A. The USAO Was Not Responsible for Victim Notification Letters Sent
by the FBI in October 2007, January 2008, and May 2008 Describing
the Status of the Case as "Under Investigation" 262
G. The CVRA Litigation Proceedings and Current Status
CA/Aronberg-000466
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736104
• •
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 263
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 EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY
FAILING TO ENSURE THAT VICTIMS IDENTIFIED IN THE FEDERAL
INVESTIGATION WERE ADVISED OF THE STATE PLEA HEARING t 265
A. Acosta's Decision to Defer to the State Attorney's Discretion Wh
to Notify Victims about Epstein's State Court Plea Hearing Did
Violate Any Clear or Unambiguous Standard 265
B. Acosta Exercised Poor Judgment When He Failed to Ens
Victims Identified in the Federal Investigation Were In
State Plea Hearing 269
V. VILLAFARA DID NOT COMMIT PROFESSION NDUCT IN HER
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS TO VICTIMS AND ATTORNEYS, IN
WHICH SHE DESCRIBED THE CASE AS "U TIGATION"
BUT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE EXISTEN A TO SOME
VICTIMS 273
VI. THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO T1MS FORTHRIGHTLY AND
WITH SENSITIVITY WHEN IT F D IMELY PROVIDE VICTIMS
WITH IMPORTANT INFORMAT O T THE RESOLUTION OF THE
FEDERAL INVESTIGATION 280
CONCLUSION 283
METHODOLOGY 287
Exhibit I: State Indictment
Exhibit 2: September Draft Non-Prosecution Agreement
Exhibit 3: Sept ber 2 007 Non-Prosecution Agreement
Exhibit 4: A m to the Non-Prosecution Agreement
Exhibit Sta In ormation
CAJAronberg-000467
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736105
• •
[Page Intentionally Left Blank]
GO
xx iv
CA/Aronterg-000468
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CI FRY 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736106
CHAPTER ONE
SIGNIFICANT ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS
I. THE FEDERAL AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
A. The Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District
of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
The Department of Justice (Department) is a cabinet-level executive bra dep znent
headed by the United States Attorney General. The stated mission of the Depart s to enforce
federal law and defend the interests of the United States; ensure public *de federal
leadership in preventing and controlling crime; seek just punishment for y of unlawful
behavior, and ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice. ment enforces
federal criminal law through investigations and prosecutions of vio Sons of federal criminal
statutes. It also engages in civil litigation. During the pe to this Report, the
Department had approximately 110,000 employees in 40 ents. The Department's
headquarters are in Washington, D.C., and it conducts m9SPo ork through field locations
around the nation and overseas.
The prosecution of federal criminal laws i le fimarily through 94 U.S. Attorney's
Offices, each headed by a presidentially appoi d th advice and consent of the U.S. Senate)
U.S. Attorney who has independent authority dyer er office but is overseen by the Attorney
General through the Deputy Attorney Genial i Th partment's Criminal Division, headed by
an Assistant Attorney General, includ mpotits with specialized areas of expertise that also
prosecute cases, assist in the pro t led by U.S. Attorney's Offices, and provide legal
expertise and policy guidance. m e Criminal Division components mentioned in this
Report are the Appellate Secti t O ce of Enforcement Operations, the Computer Crime and
Intellectual Property Section, prominently, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
(CEOS).
CEOS, based i tngton, D.C., comprises attorneys and investigators who specialize
in investigating d pro Ling child exploitation crimes, especially those involving technology,
and they as .S. Attorney's Offices in investigations, trials, and appeals related to these
offenses. ides advice and training to federal prosecutors, law enforcement personnel,
and gov cials. CEOS also works to develop and refine proposals for prosecution
pone' ion, government practices, and agency regulations.
The U.S. Attorneys' Manual (USAM) (revised in 2018 and renamed the Justice Manual)
is a co pilation of Department rules, policies, and guidance governing the conduct of Department
employees. It includes requirements for approval by, or consultation with, the Criminal Division
Two U.S. Attorney's Offices, in the judicial districts of Guam and of the Northern Mariana Islands, arc
headed by a single U.S. Attorney. The Attorney General and the U.S. District Court have authority to appoint acting
and interim U.S. Attorneys.
CA/Aronberg-000469
FILED: PAL N.1 BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736107
• •
or other divisions having responsibility for specific criminal enforcement, such as the Civil Rights
Division. In this Report, OPR applies the USAM provisions in effect at the relevant time.
During the period most relevant to this Report, the Attorney General was Michael
Mukasey, the Deputy Attorney General was Mark Filip, and the Assistant Attorney General for
the Criminal Division was Alice Fisher. The Chief of CEOS was Andrew Oosterbaan.
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO) handles federal
matters in the Southern District of Florida 'udicial district, which covers the counties o Miami-
Dade, Broward, Monroe, Palm Beach, St. Lucie, Indian River, Okeecho , and
Highlands, an area of over 15,000 square mi es. During the period relevant tot the
USAO had a staff of approximately 200 Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) support
personnel. The main office is in Miami; staffed branch offices are locat uderdale,
West Palm Beach (covering Palm Beach County), and Fort Pierce; and an u nch office
is located in Key West. The West Palm Beach USAO office is appro miles from the
Miami office. The USAO is headed by the U.S. Attorney; the seco rn mmand is the First
Assistant U.S. Attorney (FAUSA), who serves as principal ad v'_ or U.S. Attorney and
supervises all components of the USAO, including the Crimi I, and Appellate Divisions,
each of which is headed by a Chief. During the period r his Report, the West Palm
Beach office consisted of two criminal sections and was Managing AUSA.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) i p c al federal law enforcement agency
and is part of the Department. It maintains feel o th t work with U.S. Attorney's Offices.
The FBI field office in Miami, headed by a S A tin Charge, has satellite offices, known
as Resident Agencies, one of which is locat@dlWes al m Beach and covers Palm Beach County.
The Epstein investigation was handled b ecr gents assigned to a particular West Palm Beach
Resident Agency squad, headed by a ry Special Agent. FBI responsibility for advising
crime victims of their rights and~dt is services available to them is handled by non-agent
Victim Specialists.
The following chart he Department's organizational structure during the period
relevant to this Repo
2
CA/Aronberg-000470
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736108
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
U.S. Department of Justice
' 2006 - 2008
Attorney
General
I
Deputy
Attorney General
ST)! ICIT OH
GEN PAL
wn of rpa
op
ulNocAL
MICE Or
AISTK(
PPOGRAMf
Magnet
oh Da IOU it.*
uPnw STA' L5
MIKE Oh
MOW I
RISOI.U11CH
ASSOCIATE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
DARED
IPCFOOMATOPI
ANO PRIVACY
Kenos own
StineMOIT
COWASSPNY
(WM RIGHIS
Of /MON
AllinPUST
DIVISIO •4
TAX OIVLSIOP.
CfPlt OrMiON
061.0Pabtleh
s..40 WARM/
Do t al lCe/SOM
COMM.!,
PEIATOMS
SERVICE
OEM OT *lm.
ONONNETITAL
Nap Now
3
•
I REAR
00040uNN
OteitruirRipic.
Iam
=CZ
WIMP STAN'
Arrow%
:UMITO
STATES
4TiOAPIFYS . . .
1.a i w
7PA
0.4am
Pptio.1003. •
1.
AU UI
unaro rum
peaspbta
SOAMCE
U.% PIATICAM
Malay
vaunt
—amt
mem
0000
=ATM
miaow
SECURITY
ON -RN
OTT= a TNt
IPISMIOR
GUMMI
C•4310.4
Otrifitot
Cala IS.
owecalf:01
ittNeva
CSOOt a
imorelliCIP4AL
MOT a TIN
PARDON
ATTORNEY
ladnI0 STAID
COMMISMCDO
I %MOM.. CSC
WRUNG/NU
looresTosua
REsnancon
POVISORT
awe
CAlAronberg-000471
EFTA02736109
B. The State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
Florida state criminal prosecutions are primarily managed by an Office of State Attorney
in each of the state's 20 judicial circuits, headed by a State Attorney who is elected to a four-year
term. Palm Beach County constitutes the 15th Judicial Circuit. Barry Krischer was the elected
State Attorney for that circuit from 1992 until January 2009. During the period relevant to this
Report, the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office, based in the City of West Palm Beach,
had more than 100 attorneys and several investigators, and a Crimes Against Children Unit headed
by Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek.
The incorporated Town of Palm Beach occupies the coastal barrier island • y of
West Palm Beach. Its law enforcement agency is the Palm Beach Police De. nt PD).
Michael Reiter, who joined the PBPD in 1981, served as PBPD Chief from 2 ary 2009.
The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office (PBSO), based in the Cit?OfWest, alm Beach, is
the largest law enforcement agency in the county. Through its Department of Corrections, the
PBSO operates the Main Detention Center and, during the period relevant to this Report, housed
minimum-security detainees, including those on work release, is Stockade facility. The current
Sheriff has served continuously since January 2005.
II. THE SUBJECT ATTORNEYS AND THE]
R. Alexander Acosta was appointed In
Florida in June 2005, at age 36. In June 2
Acosta, and after Senate confirmation, Aco
N THE EPSTEIN CASE
.S. Attorney for the Southern District of
t W. Bush formally nominated
in in as the U.S. Attorney in October 2006.
After graduating from law schodCAcosta served a federal appellate clerkship; an I8-month
term as an associate at the firm of lab & Ellis in Washington, D.C.; approximately four years
as a policy fellow and law sch r and nearly two years as a Deputy Assistant Attorney
General in the Department's rvr Division. He was presidentially appointed in 2002 as a
member of the National r Re tons Board, and in 2003 as Assistant Attorney General in
charge of the Department's ghts Division, where he served from August 2003 until his
appointment as Interi Attorney, and where he oversaw, among other things, the prosecution
of human traffic 'ng an chi d sex-trafficking cases. As U.S. Attorney, Acosta's office was in the
USAO's Mia eadqu ers, although he traveled to the USAO's branch offices.
a's tenure as U.S. Attorney, the USAO initiated the federal investigation of
Epst in plea discussions with Epstein's counsel, and negotiated the federal non-
prosecu eement (NPA) that is the subject of this Report. Acosta made the decision to
federal investigation into Epstein's conduct by allowing Epstein to enter a state plea.
Acost was personally involved in the negotiations that led to the NPA, reviewed various iterations
of the agreement, and approved the final agreement signed by the USAO. Acosta continued to
provide supervisory oversight and to have meetings and other communications with Epstein's
attorneys during the nine-month period between the signing of the NPA on September 24, 2007,
and Epstein's entry of guilty pleas in state court pursuant to the terms of the agreement, on June 30,
2008. On December 8, 2008, after the presidential election and while Epstein was serving his state
prison sentence, Acosta was formally recused from all matters involving the law firm of
4
CA/Aronberg-000472
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736110
Kirkland & Ellis, which was representing Epstein, because Acosta had begun discussions with the
firm about possible employment.
After leaving the USAO in June 2009, Acosta became the iof the Florida International
University College of Law. In April 2017, Acosta became the . . Secretary of Labor, but he
resigned from that post effective July 19, 2019, following public criticism of the USAO's handling
of the Epstein case.
Jeffrey H. Sloman joined the USAO in 1990 as a line AUSA. In 2001, he becam Deputy
Chief of the USAO's Fort Lauderdale branch office Narcotics and Violent Crimes S eo and in
2003, became the Managing AUSA for that branch office. In early 2004, Sloman s "rated
Chief of the USAO's Criminal Division. In October 2006, Sloman became tl l US and
Sloman's office was located with Acosta's in the Miami office's executive snAs FAUSA, Sloman was responsible for supervising the Civil • 'nal, and Appellate
Divisions, and he was part of the supervisory team that oversaw e E tein investigation.
Although Sloman had relatively little involvement in the decisions and ions that led to the
NPA and did not review it before it was signed, he personally iteggiNd an addendum to the NPA,
which he signed on behalf of the USAO in October 2007. er subordinates Matthew Menchel
and Andrew Lourie left the USAO, Sloman directly enga ith the line AUSA, Villafafia,
on Epstein matters, and participated in meetings and of emications with e ense counsel.
After Acosta was formally recused from the Epst • a December 2008, Sloman became
the senior USAO official supervising the matt A sta left the USAO, Sloman became
the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern D' rida, and in January 2010, the Attorney
General appointed Sloman to be the Interitq A ey for the district. Sloman left the USAO
to enter private practice in June 2010.
Matthew I. Menchel join e D in 1998 after having served as a New York County
(Manhattan) Assistant District 11 years. After several years as a line AUSA, Menchel
became Chief of the USAO' alor es Section. In October 2006, Menchel became the Chief
of the USAO's Criminal Di ion, aced in Miami. As Criminal Division Chief, Menchel was
part of the supervisory team tha ersaw the Epstein investigation, and he participated in meetings
and other communicate defense counsel. Menchel participated in the decision to extend a
two-year state-b: ed pl p oposal to Epstein and communicated it to the defense. Shortly after
that plea offer exte ed to Epstein in early August 2007, and before the precise terms of the
NPA were d with defense counsel, Menchel left the USAO to enter private practice.
A C. Lourie joined the USAO as a line AUSA in 1994, after having served for three
SA in New Jersey. During his 13-year tenure at the USAO, Lourie served two
ail as the Acting Chief of the Department's Criminal Division's Public Integrity
Seen° first from September 2001 until September 2002, and then from February 2006 until July
2006. Between those two details, and again after his return to the USAO in July 2006, Lourie was
a Deputy Chief of the USAO's Criminal Division, serving as the Managing AUSA for the West
Palm Beach branch office. Lourie was part of the supervisory team that oversaw the Epstein
investigation and negotiated the NPA, participating in meetings and other communications with
defense counsel. During September 2007, while the NPA was being negotiated, Lourie
transitioned out of the USAO to serve on detail as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
5
CA/Aronberg-000473
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736111
• •
for the Department's Criminal Division, a position in which he served as Chief of Staff to Assistant
Attorney General Alice Fisher. Lourie left the Department in February 2008 to enter private
practice.
Ann C. Villafafia joined the USA0 in September 2001 as a line AUSA. She served
in the Major Crimes Section in Miami until January 2004, when she transferred to the West Palm
Beach branch office. Villafafia handled the majority of the child exploitation cases in West Palm
Beach, along with other criminal matters. In 2006, she was designated as the USAO's first
coordinator for Project Safe Childhood, a new Department initiative focusing on chil4 sexual
exploitation and abuse.'
In 2006, Villafafia assumed responsibility for the Epstein investigation. inc USA,
Villafafia handled all aspects of the investigation. Villafafia determined inquiry to
pursue, identified the witnesses to be interviewed, conducted legal resear rt possible
charges, and sought guidance from others at the USAO and in the Dcpata th1 I illafafia, along
with the FBI case agents and the FBI Victim Specialist, had direct con! ct wi Epstein's victims.
She handled court proceedings related to the investigation. Shed a prosecution
memorandum, indictment, and related documents, and revis documents in response to
comments from those in her supervisory chain of commas a participated in meetings
between members of the USAO and counsel for Epst pared briefing materials for
management in preparation for those meetings and ' e to issues raised during those
meetings. Although Acosta made the decision to tit -prosecution agreement to resolve
the federal investigation and approved the to o A, Villafafia was the primary USAO Nrepresentative negotiating with defense coup a d ng the language of the NPA, under her
hesi‘supervisors' direction and guidance, and s ed e NPA on behalf of the USAO. Thereafter,
Villafatla monitored Epstein's compli wit he NPA and addressed issues relating to his
conduct. After two victims pursu civil lawsuit seeking enforcement of their rights
under the Crime Victims' Rights et C ), 18 U.S.C. § 3771 ("the CVRA litigation" or "the
CVRA case"), in July 2008, a s ed as co-counsel to the lead attorney representing the
USAO until February 2019, hen t e SAO was recused from handling the litigation .1 Villafafia
left the USAO in August 201 n another federal government agency.
The following
personnel, duriggthe peijgd of the Epstein investigation.
hows the USAO positions filled by the subjects, or other USAO
2 Project Safe Childhood is a nationwide initiative launched by the Department in May 2006 to combat the
growing epidemic of technology-facilitated child sexual exploitation and abuse. Lcd by the U.S. Attorneys' Offices
and CEOS, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute
individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims.
3 After the district court issued its February 21, 2019 opinion finding misconduct on the pail of the goverrunent,
the Department re-assigned the CVRA case to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia
6
CA/Aronberg-000474
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736112
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
7
USAO RolO and Responsibilities in Epstein Investigation
Mid -200 through Mid -2009
2006
.I cl(Sln ni.m N1Htthew Nit:nett.]
2007
• MrSlim:in (Acting)
CA/Aronberg-000475
EFTA02736113
• •
W. JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEYS
A. Jeffrey Epstein
Jeffrey Epstein was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1953.4 Although he did not graduate
from college, he taught physics and mathematics to teens at an elite private school in Manhattan
from 1974 until 1976. Through connections made at the school, he was hired at the Wall Street
firm of Bear Steams, where he from junior assistant to a floor trader to become a limited
partner before leaving in 1981. An enigmatic individual whose source of wealth was r clear,
Epstein reportedly provided wealth management and advisory services to a business
through whom Epstein acquired a mansion in midtown Manhattan, where he resid
1990s, Epstein acquired a large residence in Palm Beach, Florida. He also own
in the U.S. Virgin Islands, a ranch in New Mexico, and a residence in Paris
among his residences in a private Boeing 727 jet.
Epstein reportedly was an investor, founder, or principal in m ad messes and other
entities, in numerous locations. Although frequently referred to a bt ire, the sources and
extent of his wealth were never publicly established during s Ina ime.s He associated with
prominent and wealthy individuals from business, politi a emit, and social circles, and
engaged in substantial philanthropy. Epstein maintain rps of employees, including
housekeeping staff and pilots, as well as numerous f e nal assistants, several of whom
traveled with him.
B. Epstein's Defense Attorneys
Jeffrey Epstein employed nu inal defense attomeys in responding to the
allegations that he had coerced girls i ng in sexual activity with him at his Palm Beach,
Florida estate. As different la e o ent entities became involved in investigating the
allegations, he added attorneys p cular relevant knowledge of, or connections with, those
entities. At the outset of t state t estigation, Epstein retained nationally prominent Miami
criminal trial attorney Roy k. e was also represented by a local criminal defense attorney
who was a former P Beac ounty Assistant State Attorney, and by nationally prominent
Harvard Law School p and criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz, who was a self-
described close 'end o Epstein. After initial plea negotiations with the State Attorney's Office,
Epstein repla e I attorney with Jack Goldberger, a prominent West Palm Beach criminal
defense a ey se law partner was married to the Assistant State Attorney handling the
Epstein ce pstein hired Goldberger, the Assistant State Attorney was removed from the
Epstein c the basis of that conflict of interest. Another prominent attorney who began
rep eseqggs pstein during the state investigation was New York City attorney Gerald Lefcourt,
4
Jr., "lefty Epstein: International Moneyinan or Mystery," New York, Oct. 28, 2002; Vicky "The
in's background has been extensively researched and reported in the media. See. e.g.. Landon
Talon c
Epstein," Vanity Fair, Mar. 2003; James Barron, "Who Is Jeffrey Epstein? An Opulent Lillralebrity Friends and
Lurid Accusations," New York Times, July 9. 2019; Lisette Voytko, "Jeffrey Epstein's Dark Facade Finally Cracks."
Forbes, July 12, 20)9.
After Epstein's death, his net worth was estimated to be approximately 8577 million, based on his will and
mist documents. htips://finte.conV5656776/jeffreyepstein-wilt-estatel.
8.
CA/Aronberg-000476
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736114
• •
whose law firm website cites his "national reputation for the aggressive defense" of "high-profile
defendants in criminal matters."
In late 2006, after the USAO opened its investigation, Epstein hired Miami criminal
Attorney for the Southern District of Florida and as Director litepartment's Executive Office
defense attorneys who were former AUSAs. One, Guy had also served as the U.S.
for United States Attorneys, the component charged with roviding close liaison between the
Department and the U.S. Attorneys. Another, Lilly Ann had served in the USAO and
as a Deputy Chief in the Major Crimes Section beforeleaving in 2005. In Au t 2007,
immediately after the USAO offered the terms that ultimately led to the NPA, two a s from
the firm of Kirkland & Ellis, one of the largest law firms in the country, contact a on
E stein's behalf: Kenneth Starr, former federal judge and Solicitor General, w serving as
of Pepperdine University School of Law while of counsel to the firm; owitz, a
litigation partner who had served in high-level positions in the admi ' o Presidents
H.W. Bush and W. Bush. They were joined by na inent Boston
criminal defense attorney Weinberg. After the NPA was sig d, f er U.S. Attorney
Joe D. Whitley joined the e ense team, as did the former Princ' Chief of CEOS and
another former U.S. Attorney, who was also a retired federal j
9
CA/Aronberg-000477
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736115
• •
[Page Intentionally Lefl Blank]
A Cog
10
CA/Arooberg-000478
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736116
CHAPTER TWO
THE NON -PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
PART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. OVERVIEW
In the following sections in this chapter, the Office of Professional Responsi
details the significant events leading to, and during, the federal investigation
negotiation and signing of the NPA; and the defense's subsequent nine-month
NPA from taking effect. OPR also describes more briefly the events occu
guilty in state court, as the USAO sought to hold him to the terms of the a
events, OPR relies heavily on contemporaneous documents, parti
instances, the emails not only describe meetings and identify the partici
issues under discussion, the alternatives considered, and the ba
helpful to explain the actions taken by the subjects, OPR also
as provided in their written responses to, or interviews w
witnesses.
A timeline of key events is set forth on the age.
IL MARCH 2005 — MAY 2006: E
BEACH POLICE DEPARTME
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
(OPR)
the
the
pled
describing
Is. In many
ut also set forth the
r n decisions. When
the subjects' explanations
r explanations provided by
INVESTIGATED BY THE PALM
ND HE PALM BEACH COUNTY STATE
A. The Initial Alleg o arlljthe PBPD Investigation
In March 2005, the p ants 14-year-old girl reported to the PBPD that a man had paid
their daughter $300 to giv m massage in his Palm Beach home.' The PBPD began
investigating Epstein,' entified as the recipient of the massage, and two of his personal assistants,
who were also implicat he complainant. The investigation soon expanded beyond the initial
claim, to encom s all auons that during 2004 and 2005, Epstein, through his female assistants is
6 usly noted, "girls" refers to females under the age of 18. Epstein's contacts with girls and young
usly kid come to the attention of the PBPD. In March 2004, a PBPD officer docwnented a telephone
coup that a 17-yearmld girl had been giving Epstein topless massages at his residence for several months for
$200 pe nassage. The girl claimed that there were nude photos of other girls throughout Epracin's home and offered
to cooperate with a police investigation. The PBPD repon relating to this complaint described thc information as
"unverified," and it was not pursued.
On November 28, 2004, the police received and recorded information that young women had been observed
coining and going from Epstein's residence. The police suspected Epstein was procuring prostitutes, but because the
PBPD did not have evidence that the women seen entering Epstein's home were minors, and typically did not
investigate prostitution occurring in private residences, it did not open an investigation into the matter.
1 I
CA/Aronberg-000479
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736117
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
Timeline of Key Events for Federal Epstein Investigation — May 2006 through October 2008
Nixy - ,t1V4.4
ied:Ed ensongaiinn into
JcfGcy lirtoin
-
firm hoofing to
Mona and S!orma
2006
12
tloi -Skonan
First As,istant United
Su'es A nontOy; NIOnthal
becomes Criminal Chief
•
•
CA/Aronberg-000480
EFTA02736118
• •
and some of the victims as well, regularly recruited local high-school-age girls to give him
massages in his home that, in some cases, led to sexual activity.
Through their interviews with victims, the police learned more about Epstein's conduct.
Some girls had only one encounter with Epstein, while others had many encounters with him. The
nature of the massages varied. According to victims, some girls remained fully clothed while they
massaged Epstein, some wore only their underwear, and some were fully nude. Victims stated
that during these massages, Epstein masturbated himself. Some victims alleged that he touched
them during the massage, usually fondling their breasts or touching their vaginas d' tly or
through their clothing. Some victims reported that Epstein used a vibrator to masturb t m, and
some stated that he digitally penetrated them. Some victims who stated that they w ore
often alleged that Epstein engaged in oral and vaginal sex with them. Accordin victim, an
Epstein female assistant participated, on at least one occasion, in sexual activity victim at
Epstein's direction!
Although the allegations varied in the specific details, for the molt part they were consistent
in describing a general pattern of conduct by Epstein and several hi tants. According to
the information provided to, and evidence gathered by, the PB tein's assistants scheduled
up to three massage appointments each day, often contact s to make an appointment
to the bedroom andrs
ences. Ti fially, when a girl
arrived at Epstein's home for a massage, she was i
while Epstein was en route to Palm Beach from one of hi
bathroom area by one of Epstein's assistants, who a sage table and massage oils. When
the assistant left the room, Epstein entered, w n n y robe or a towel. After removing his
clothing, Epstein lay face down and nude on e table, instructed the girl to remove her
clothing, and then explained to her how sh her to perform the massage. During the
massage, Epstein masturbated himself en 'le fondling the girl performing the massage.
When Epstein climaxed, the mas er. Usually, Epstein paid the girl 5200 for the
massage, and if she had not been t i o before, Epstein asked for her phone number to contact
her in the future. Epstein en t girls who performed these massages to find other girls
interested in performing m ges o im, and promised that if a girl brought a friend along to
perform a massage, each gi ou receive $200. Several of the victims acknowledged to the
PBPD that they had tied of er girls on Epstein's behalf.
The evidence re rding Epstein's knowledge of the girls' ages was mixed. Some girls who
recruited oth Is reportedly instructed the new recruits to tell Epstein, if asked, that they were
over 18 ye wever, some girls informed the PBPD that they told Epstein their real ages.
Police w to corroborate one girl's report that Epstein sent flowers to her at her high school
after ed in a school play. In addition, an employee of Epstein told the PBPD that some
o es who came to Epstein's residence appeared to be underage.
pstein was aware of the PBPD investigation almost from the beginning. He retained local
criminal defense counsel, who in turn hired private investigators. In October 2005, the PBPD,
with the assistance of the State Attorney's Office, obtained a search warrant for Epstein's
residence. When police arrived at Epstein's home on October 20, 2005, to execute the warrant,
According to the PBPD records, investigators obtained no allegations or evidence that any person other than
this female assistant participated in the sexual activity with the girls.
13
CA/Aronberg-000481
I II ED: PALM BEACH COUNTY., FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736119
• •
they found computer monitors and keyboards in the home, as well as disconnected surveillance
cameras, but the computer equipment itself—including video recordings and other electronic
storage media—were gone. Nonetheless, the PBPD retrieved some evidence from Epstein's home,
including notepads on which Epstein's assistants documented messages from many girls over a
two-year span returning phone calls to confirm appointments. The police also found numerous
photographs of naked young females of indeterminate age. Police photographs taken of the interior
ifatein's home corroborated the victims' descriptions to police of the layout of the home and
bedroom and bathroom area. The police also found massage tables and oils, one victim's
high school transcript, and items the police believed to be sex toys.
B. The State Attorney's Office Decides to Present the Case to a St ry
State Attorney Barry Krischer explained to OPR that the Epstein al in that
police brought the case to his office without having made an arrest. Krisc miliar with
Epstein, and the case was assigned to the Crimes Against Children U I Chief Michael
Reiter stated in a 2009 civil deposition that when the PBPD initially b ught he case to the State
Attorney's Office in 2005, Krischer was supportive of the invest old Reiter, "Let's go
for it," because, given the nature of the allegations, Epstein ebody we have to stop."
Krischer told OPR, however, that both the detectives and t ors came to recognize that
"there were witness problems."
Assistant State Attorney and Crimes Again hi nit Chief Lanna Belohlavek told
OPR that she and an experienced Assistant Sta mey who initially worked with her on the
case "were at a disagreement" with the PBP " r at the state . . . could ethically charge."
According to Belohlavek, she did not beli e ev ence the police presented would satisfy the
elements of proof required to charge E in wt the two felony crimes the police wanted filed,
unlawful sexual activity with a min Lida Statute § 794.05(1)) and lewd and lascivious
molestation of a minor (Florida S .04(5)), and the police "were not happy with that."
In addition, victims had given di ry statements to police, and the original complainant,
who could have supported a arge firing sexual offender registration, recanted her allegation
of sexual contact. Belohlave fie Epstein a resolution that would result in a five-year term of
probation, which her • ted.9
Records blicl re eased by the State Attorney's Office show that, beginning in early
2006, attorne r Epstdfn sought to persuade the state prosecutors to allow Epstein to plead "no
contest" ra i th ilty. To that end, the defense team aggressively investigated victims and
present e ttorney's Office with voluminous material in an effort to undermine some of
the v' ibility, including criminal records, victims' social media postings (such as
M es) about their own sexual activity and drug use, and victim statements that appeared
to u ercut allegations of criminal activity and Epstein's knowledge of victims' ages. Krischer
Belohlavek stated that she did not consider charging procurement of a minor for prostitution--the charge
Epstein ultimately pled to pursuant to the NPA—because the police had not presented it.
9 In April 2006, the State Attorney's Office offered Epstein an opportunity to plead guilty to the third degree
felony of aggravated assault with the intent to commit a felony, with adjudication withheld and five years of probation
with no unsupervised contact with minors.
14
CNAron be rg-000482
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736120
• •
told QPR that Epstein's local counsel. brought attorney Man Dershowitz to see Krischer and the
Assistant State Attomey„but Dershowitz was "overly aggressive" and threatened,'"We're going
to destroy your witnesses; don't go to court because we're goingto destroy thoae.girls." According
to; Krischer, Dershowitz so "tainted the waters" that Epstein also hired local attorney Jack
Goldberger, with. whom Krisdher had "a working relationship." Because the husband of the
Assistant StateAttorney was' Goldberger's law partner, Belohlavekrccused the Assistant State
Attorney to remove "even theappear.anc.e, of any kind of conflict" of interest, and Belohlavek took
over the case. Goldberger, together with Gerald Lercourt, a nationally known New York criminal
defense attorney also representing Epstein, then directed their efforts atBelohlavek an -scher
to. dissuade the office from. prosecuting Epstein, largely by attackingthe credibility victim
witnesses.
Meanwhile, 'the State Attorney's Office took the unusual step of pre resent the
case to a grand jury. KrischertalcIOPR that under state law as it exist u ttl dh n ed in 20.16,
his office prosecuted minors as young •as 14 for prostitution.' The that Epstein's
victims themselves could have:been:prosecuted caused "great constema n wi in the office," and
according to Krischer, resulted in the decision to putthe case hef the jury.11 Belohlavek
told. OPR that her office took the allegations. against Epstei ly, because . . it was an
organized schemero involve•younggiels by offetiritthem "wouldn't say that. We . . .
thought they were prostitutes ... [but] I think there: as However, she said, although
Epstgin's "behavior was reprehensible; . . . I'm limit e state statutes as to what I c.an
charge." Krischer told OPR, "There were so man t olyingthe victim-witnesses that to
my mind, in consultation with my [prosecutors],e y way to achieve, to my mind, real justice
was to presenrthe case to'the grand jury and -file" criminal charges against Epstein.
C. Florida StateProcedur r Br ing Criminal Charges
Federal criminal procedu hat a .felony Charge,--that is, any charge punithable
by imprisonment for one yeario roughtbya grand jury unless waived by a defendant."
Under Florida law, however ry is required to. bring criminal charges only in a death
penalty case." For all oth a State Attorney has concurrent authority to file criminal
char-get by means of document Called an "infortnation" or'to seek a grand.jury indictment.
Although Florida crimi are routinely charged by information, Stateigrand juries are often
utilized in sensi ' e or h-profile cases, such as those involving allegations of wrongdoing by
public Ale; Flort a grand jury proceedings are subject to strict secrecy' rules that, among
to d ORR Mai prostitution was a misdemeanor charge, and she did not handle misdemeanors.
It the. Florida Department of Lay Enfomement.imcstigation into the Slate Atiorncy's Office's
lEpsitineasywas pending at the timeOPR interviewed Krischer, he declined to further explain to OPR
his o prosecutive decisions.
17 U.S. Corm. amend; V; Fed: .ft, Grim. P. 7(a), (b). The sole exception milder the rule is felopy criminal
contempt, which need, not be chargcd.by indictment.. Fed. R. Grim P. l(aX1).
13 Fla. Cos. Art. § 5(a).
14 The Florida Bar, The Grand Jury, Reporters Handbook —The Grand J.ury,-availabk.achtips://www Boridabar.
orginewslresources/rpt-libldrpt-hbk-131.
15
CA/Aronberg-000483
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736121
• •
other things, prohibit anyone from being present while grand jurors deliberate and vote, and
proscribe the release of the notes, records, and transcripts of a grand jury."
D. PBPD Chief Reiter Becomes Concerns with the State Attorney's Office's
Handling of the State Investigation and Seeks a Federal Investigation
In 2006, PBPD Chief Reiter perceived that Krischer's attitude had changed and, according
to Reiter's statements in his 2009 deposition, Krischer said that he did not believe the victims were
credible. Reiter was disturbed when Krischer suggested that the PBPD issue a notice f Epstein
to appear in court on misdemeanor charges, leading Reiter to begin questionin scher' s
objectivity and the State Attorney's Office's approach to the case. As Reiter his
deposition:
This was a case that I felt absolutely needed the attention of th
Attorney's Office, that needed to be prosecuted in statefigt8
not generally something that's prosecuted in a federal catrito.iet
knew that it didn't really matter what the facts we in t it
was pretty clear to me that Mr. Krischer did n. o prosecute
this case.
On May I, 2006, Reiter submitted to Krischer use affidavits and a case filing
package relating to Epstein, one of his personal assi s, young local woman whom Epstein
first victimized and then used to recruit other gir is t ansmittal letter, which was later made
public, Reiter criticized Krischer, noting that State Attorney's Office's "treatment of
these cases [to be) highly unusual."I6 Rei scher "to examine the unusual course that
your office's handling of this matter and to consider disqualifying himself from
prosecuting Epstein."
III. THE FBI AND THEE. YESTIGATE EPSTEIN, AND THE DEFENSE
TEAM ENGAGES WITH. MAO
A. May 2006 — Fe nary 2007: The Federal Investigation Is Initiated, and the
USAO a Case File
In ea 2006, >i West Palm Beach FBI Special Agent who worked closely with
AUSA An 'llafafia on child exploitation cases—and who is referred to in this Report as
"the cas entioned to Villafafia in "casual conversations" having learned that the PBPD
was g a wealthy Palm Beach man who recruited minors for sexual activity. The case
a. afafia that the PBPD had reached out to the FBI because the State Attorney's Office
was enng either not charging the case or allowing the defendant to plead to a misdemeanor
Fla. Stat. § 905.27 (2007).
16 See Larry MI "Palm Beach chief focus of fire in Epstein case." Patna Beach Post, Aug. 14, 2006.
1? As noted, Krischer generally declined in his OPR interview to explain his office's prosocutive decisions;
however, regarding allegations of favoritism to Epstein's defense counsel, Krischer told OPR, just don't play that
way.-
16
CA/Aronberg -000484
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736122
• •
charge. Villafafia suggested meeting with the PBPD, but the case agent explained that before
formally presenting the case to the FBI, the PBPD wanted to see how the State Attorney's Office
decided to charge Epstein.
1. The PBPD Presents the Matter to the FBI and the IMO
In May 2006, the lead Detective handling the state's investigation met with Villafafia and
the FBI case agent to summarize for them the information learned during the state's
investigation." At the time, neither Villafaila nor the case agent had heard of Epstein o ad any
knowledge of his background.
According to Villafafia, during this meeting, the Detective expressed con t "p Ure
had been brought to bear on . . . Krischer by Epstein's attorneys," and he a • Reiter were
concerned the state would charge Epstein with only a misdemeanor or not a all. e Detective
explained that the defense had hired private investigators to trail Rei ietective, had
raised claims of various improprieties by the police, and, in the view of a PF3F1D, had orchestrated
the removal of the Assistant State Attorney initially assigned to handle t der, who was viewed
as an aggressive prosecutor, by hiring a defense attorney wh tionship with the Assistant
State Attorney created a conflict of interest for the prosecutor :'ven the missing computer
equipment and surveillance camera videotapes, the De ved Epstein may have been
"tipped off" in advance about the search warrant.
During the meeting, Villafafia reviewed Cade to see what federal charges could
be brought against Epstein. She focused o . §§ 2422 (enticement of minors into
prostitution or other illegal sexual activity use facility of interstate or foreign commerce
to persuade or induce a minor to engag pro tion or other illegal sexual activity) and 2423
(travel for purposes of engaging in it conduct). As they discussed these charges, the
Detective told Villafafia that Ep is assistants had traveled out of the Palm Beach
International Airport on Epst airplane, and flight logs sometimes referred to
passengers as "female" with age, which the Detective suspected might be references
to underage girls. Howeve etective acknowledged that he was unable to confirm that
suspicion and did not have firm dente indicating that Epstein had transported any girls interstate
or internationally. Ne s, Villafafia believed Epstein could be prosecuted federally, in part
because of his o n inte tat and international travel to the Southern District of Florida to abuse
girls. Villaf scusse with the Detective and the case agent the additional investigation needed
to prove v the federal statutes she had identified. She told them that if the evidence
support it, ca could be prosecuted federally, but she assured them that opening a federal
invest' Id not preclude the State Attorney's Office from charging Epstein should it
The Detective died in May 2018.
19 In his 2009 deposition, Reiter testified that after he referred the Epstein matter to the FBI, a Town of Palm
Beach official approached Reiter and criticized his referral of the investigation to the FBI, telling Reiter that the ViClillIS
were not believable and "Palm Beach solves its own problems."
17
CAlAronberg-000485
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736123
2. May 2006: The USAO Accepts the Case and Opens a Case File
On May 23, 2006, Villafana prepared the paperwork to open a USAO case file. Villafana
told OPR that several aspects of the case implicated federal interests and potentially merited a
federal prosecution: (I) the victimization of minors through the use of facilities of interstate
commerce (the telephone and airports); (2) the number of victims involved; (3) the possibility that
Epstein had been producing or possessing child pornography (suggested by the removal of the
computer equipment from his residence); and (4) the possibility that improper political pressure
had affected the State Attorney Office's handling of the case. The investigation w named
"Operation Leap Year" because the state investigation had identified approximatel 29 'rls as
victims of Epstein's conduct.20
Villafaha told OPR that from the outset of the federal investigation stood that
the case would require a great deal of time and effort given the number of I victims and
Epstein's financial resources. Nonetheless, Villafaha was willing to put in th and believed
that the FBI was similarly committed to the case. Villafaha discussed thscaseiwith her immediate
supervisor, who also "thought it would be a good case" and appr•ved Thia.e opened within the
USAO's file management system, and on May 23, 2006, it wa rj ly initiated.
3. July 14,2006: Villafana Inform
Because Villafana was not familiar with
learned that he "took a scorched earth approach"
had hired multiple lawyers to interact with t
state case, and she believed he would
investigation.
Therefore, Villafaha arran
Sloman, who at the time was th
before asked to meet with "
Epstein had improperly infl
explained to OPR that she wa
Epstein investigation.
confidence. At this
Villafaha did
and her se
d Sloman about the Case
s'% researched his background and
at n. Villafaha was aware that Epstein
torney's Office in an effort to derail the
same in connection with any federal
with U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and Jeffrey
'vision Chief" Villafaha told OPR that she had never
agement" about initiating a case, but the allegations that
e State Attorney's Office greatly troubled her. Villafaha
o ensure that her senior supervisors were "on board" with the
dition, she viewed Sloman as a friend, in whom she had particular
t 'though Villafaha's immediate supervisor was aware of the case,
inform kndrew Lourie, who was then in charge of the West Palm Beach office
supervisor, about the matter or that she was briefing Acosta and Sloman.
met with Acosta and Sloman in Miami on July 14, 2006. She told OPR that at
the m e informed them that the PBPD had identified a group of girls who had provided to
7D 'Habib opened "Operation Leap Year" during the same month in which the Department bunched hs
"Project Safe Childhood" initiative, and Acosta designated Villafada to serve as the USAO's Project Safe Childhood
coordinator.
Although Acosta had been formally nominated to the U.S. Attorney position on June 9, he was not confirmed
by the Senate until August 3, 2006, and was not sworn in until October 2006. In September 2006, Acosta announced
the appointments of Sloman as FAUSA and Matthew Menchcl as Chief of the USAO's Criminal Division, and they
assumed their respective new offices in October 2006.
18
CA/Aronberg-000486
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736124
• •
Epstein massages that were sexual in nature, and that Epstein had used "various types of pressure"
to avoid prosecution by the state, including hiring attorneys who had personal connections to the
State Attorney. Villafaha said that part of her goal in speaking to Acosta and Sloman at the outset
of the federal investigation was to sensitize them to the tactics Epstein's legal team would likely
employ. Villafafia explained, "When you have a case that you know people are going to be getting
calls about . . . you just want to make sure that they know about it so they don't get . . . a call from
out of the blue." According to Villafana, she told Acosta and Sloman that the FBI was willing to
put the necessary resources into the case, and she was willing to put in the time, but she "didn't
want to get to the end and have [the] same situation occur" with a federal prosecuti as had
occurred with the state. She told OPR, "I remember specifically saying to them th petted
the case would be time and resource-intensive and I did not want to invest the tim 81' s
resources if the Office would just back down to pressure at the end." Accor. Vil afana,
Acosta and Sloman promised that "if the evidence is there, we will prosecut " In a later
email to Lourie and her immediate supervisor, Villafaha recounted that sh s th Acosta and
Sloman because she "knew that what has happened to the state prosecur n pen to a federal k t)
prosecution if the U.S. Attorney isn't on board," but Acosta and Stoma ad 'yen her "the
light" to go forward with the Epstein investigation.
Both Acosta and Sloman told OPR that they did
Villafana. Each told OPR that at the time the federa on was initiated, he had not
previously heard of Epstein.'
Acosta told OPR that he understood fro s th se that the case involved a wealthy man N tlir
who was "doing sordid things" with girls, i seemed a reasonable matter to pursue"
federally. Epstein's wealth and status did 'se y concern for him, because, as Acosta told
OPR, the USAO had prosecuted "lots o uen I folks." When asked by OPR to articulate the
federal interest he perceived at the implicated by the case, Acosta responded, "the
!Station of girls or minor fe garding Villafana's view that she had been given a
light" to proceed with es li on, Acosta told OPR that he would not likely have
explicitly told Villafaha to '• spen r time" on the case; rather, his practice would have been
simply to acknowledge the lion she shared about the case and confirm that a federal
investigation "sound( reasons e."
Sloman d O tat he could not recall what he initially knew about the Epstein
investigation, er than that he had a basic understanding that the State Attorney's Office had
"abdicated tr onsibility" to investigate and prosecute Epstein. In his OPR interview,
Sloman r II with specificity Villafafia's concern about Epstein's team pressuring the
State Office, but he said he was never concerned that political pressure would affect
th noting that as of July 2006, the USAO had recently prosecuted wealthy and politically
con mated obbyist Jack Abramoff.
e July 2006 meeting with
22 Louric told OPR that when he first heard about the Leap Year investigation, he likewise was unaware of
Epstein. On July 24, 2006, Villafaila mailed to Sloman a link to a Paint Beach Post anick that described Epstein as
a "Manhattan money nunager" and "pan-time Palm Beadier who has socialized with Donald Trump, Bill Clinton and
Kevin Spacey." Sloman forwarded the article to Acosta.
19
CA/Aronberg-000487
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERIC. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736125
• •
4. Late July 2006: The State Indicts Epstein, and the USAO Moves
Forward with a Federal Investigation
Several days after Villafana spoke with Acosta and Sloman, on July 19, 2006, Assistant
State Attorney Belohlavek presented the case to the state grand jury.33 Krischer told OPR that
"the whole thing" was put before the grand jury. According to a statement made at the time by the
State Attorney's Office spokesman, the grand jury was presented with a list of charges from highest
to lowest, without a recommendation by the prosecutor, and deliberated with the prosecutor out of
the room?' The state grand jury returned an indictment charging Epstein with one count f felony
solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statute § 796.07, a felony under state w use
it alleged three or more instances of solicitation.25 The indictment did not identif e p or
persons solicited and made no mention of the fact that Epstein had solicited min On July 23,
2006, Epstein self-surrendered to be arrested on the indictment, but was , and the
charges were made public.
yillafzula told OPR that she decided to move forward with the eral nvestigation at that
point because she believed the State Attorney's Office would pe it to enter a plea to a
reduced misdemeanor charge and that once he entered a guilty a, t Department's Petite policy
might preclude a federal prosecution.27 Villafafia told the time, she "definitely
believed that we were going to proceed to [a federal assuming that . . we had
sufficient evidence."
• Villafana and tic FBI obtained and e
them. Because the grand jury records have
in this Report.
of the state grand jury proceeding, and Laurie reviewed
red released publicly, OPR does not discuss their substance
D1 Larry =, "Police &-n r o discredit teenage girls," Palm Beach Post, July 29, 2006, citing
statement by State Attorney's Offi spoke¢ n Michael Edmondson.
• Indictment in State v. Epste CF9454AXX (July 19, 2006), attached as Exhibit I to this Report.
ss In pertinent pan. t ndiament read, "IBletween the 1st day of August 120041 and October 31, 2005,
[Epstein] did solicit, induce, ce, or procure another to commit prostitution lewdness, or assignation, . . . on three
or more occasions " The 15- nth time frame and lack of detail regarding the place or manner of the offense made
it impossible to identify from the charging document which victim or victims served as the basis for the charge in the
slate indictment actolilavek explained to OPR that the charge did not list specific victims so that she could go forward
at trial with ref victim or victims might be available and willing to testify at that time.
Tic petite policy is a set of guidelines used by federal prosecutors when considering whether to pursue federal
charges for defendants previously prosecuted for state or local offenses. The Constitution does not prohibit the federal
govenunent from prosecuting defendants who have been charged, acquitted, or convicted on state charges based on
the same criminal conduct. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the long-standing pnnciple that the prohibition
against double jeopardy does not apply to prosecutions brought by different sovereigns. See, e.g., Gamble v. United
States, 587 U.S. 139 S. Ct. 1960, 196647 (2019) (and cases cited therein); Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S.
187, 195 (1959) (and cases cited therein); and United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382 (1922). Nonetheless, to
better promote the efficient use of criminal justice resources, the Department developed policies in 1959 and 1960 to
guide federal prosecutors in the use of their charging discretion. See Chapter Two, Pan Two, Section ILA.2, for a
more detailed discussion of the Petite policy.
20
CA/Aronberg-000488
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736126
• •
On July 24, 2006, Villafana alerted Sloman, who informed Acosta, that the State Attorney's
Office had charged and arrested Epstein? On that same day, the FBI in West Palm Beach formally
opened the case, assigning the case agent and, later, a co-case agent, to investigate it. Villafana
told Sloman that the FBI agents "are getting copies of all of the evidence and we are going to
review everything at [the] FBI on Wednesday," and she noted that her target date for filing federal
charges against Epstein was August 25, 2006. Acosta emailed Sloman, asking whether it was
"appropriate to approach [State Attorney Krischer] and give him a heads up re where we might
go?" Sloman replied, "No for fear that it will be leaked straight to Epstein.""
Although Lourie learned of the case at this point from Sloman, and eventually a more
active role in supervising the investigation, Villafafia continued to update Aco an
directly on the progress of the case.30 Villafafia's immediate supervisor in Wes Beach had
little involvement in supervising the Epstein investigation, and at times, V' rected her
emails to Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie without copying her immedi t isor. In the
immediate supervisor's view, however, "Miami" purposefully assume hority" for the
case, which the immediate supervisor regarded as "highly unusual."'
By late August 2006, Villafafia and the FBI had ident ed eral additional victims and
obtained "some flight manifests, telephone messages, a 'ne records that show the
communication and travel in interstate commerce" by d his associates. Villafafia
reported to her supervisors that the State Attorney's O not provide transcripts from the
Akiistate grand jury voluntarily, and that she would be Chief Reiter "to convince him to
relinquish the evidence to the FBI." Villafafi al told er supervisors that she expected "a
number of fights" over her document dema , t t some parties were refusing to comply
"after having contact with Epstein or his a s."
Villafafia's reference to anti ts" and lack of compliance led Sloman to ask
whether she was referring to the !arena responded that the problems did not involve
victims, but rather a former e o pstein and some business entities that had objected to
document demands as over) urden e. Villafana explained to Sloman and Lourie that some
victims were "scared and/or barrassed," and some had been intimidated by the defense, but
"everyone [with] who the agen s have spoken so far has been willing to tell her story." Villafafia
On the day, Slbnan entailed Lourie, whom Villafafia had not yet briefed about the case, noting that
Operation Leap vas "a highly sensitive case involving some Palm Beach rich guy."
0 interview, Slonran did not recall what he meant by this remark. but speculated that it was
likely Rot 't trust the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office," and that he believed there tiny have been "some
type of Klan p between somebody in the [State Attorney's Office) and the defense team."
3: 4 After Villarafki sent a lengthy substantive email about the case to her immediate supervisor, Lourie, Stoma;
and Acosta on August 23, 2006, Lourie entailed Simian: "Do you and Alex !Acosta] want her updating you on the
case?" Sloman responded; "At this point, I don't malty care. If Alex says something then I'll tell her to just run it
through you guys."
31 OPR understood "Miami" to be a reference to the senior managers who were located in the Miami office;
that is, Acosta: Sloman, and Menchel. Records show, and Villafaila told OPR, that she believed Epstein's attorneys
"made a conscious decision to skip" her inunediate supervisor and directed their communications to the supervisory
chain above the immediate supervisor—Lourie, Menchel, SI0111311, and Acosta.
21
CNAronberg-000489
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736127
• •
also informed Sloman and Lourie that the FBI was re-interviewing victims who had given taped
statements to the PBPD, to ensure their stories "have not changed," and that "rainy discrepancies
will be noted and considered." She conceded that "rgietting them to tell their stories in front of a
jury at trial may be much harder," but expressed confidence that the two key victims "will stay the
course." She acknowledged that the case "needs to be rock solid."
The case agent told OPR that in this initial stage of the investigation, the FBI "partnered
up very well" with the USAO. She recalled that there was little higher-level management oversight
either from the FBI or the USAO, and "we were allowed to do what we needed to do get our
job done." This included continuing to identify, locate, and interview victims d pstein
employees, and obtaining records relating to Epstein's travel, communication cial
transactions. The case agent viewed the case as "strong"
5. October 2006 — February 2007: Epstein's D fie dsd Initiate
Contact with Villafafia, Lourie, and Sloman,
11
r a Meeting
Just as Epstein had learned of the PBPD investigation at its earl leg he quickly became
aware of the federal investigation, both because the FBI wa iewing his employees and
because the government was seeking records from his bus' e of Epstein's New York
attorneys, Gerald Lefcourt, made initial contact wit t f in August 2006. As the
investigation progressed, Epstein took steps to e USAO to decline federal
prosecution.32 As with the state investigation, Ep t e yed attorneys who had experience
with the Departmentikelationships with i AO personnel.33 One of Epstein's
a former career S. Attorney for the Southern District ofMiami lawyers, Guy
Florida, made an overture on Epstein's Io rly November 2006.J4 telephoned
Villafafia, a call that Sloman joined at request. offered to provide Villafafia
32 Villafana told OPR that
Chapter One,
Epstein in connection wi
Department, the USAO, or
during civil depos indiv
Epstein was se
"ham-fisted"
34
IWO yea
U s.
AS )ryas wanted to stop the investigation "prematurely."
ion III.B this Report identifies several of the attorneys known to have represented
ederal investigation, along with a brief summary of their connections to the
itals involved in the investigation. At least one former AUSA also represented
als associated with Epstein. Menchel told OPR that he and his colleagues recognized
attorneys based on their perceived influence within the USAO, and they viewed this tactic as
" Menchel told OPR, "[OM perspective was this is not going to .. . change anything."
in thc USA() for over JO years, and was U.S. Attorney from 2000 to 2002. He then served for
or of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the Depanmenis administrative office serving the
rty in the invesueation, Lourie voluntarily notified the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer that
and also had a close friendship with law partner, who also was a former AUSA
and also represented Epstein. Lourie requested guidance as to whet ter lus relationships with ' rand ME law
partner created either a conflict of interest or an appearance of impropriety mandating rccusa
with'
he ro essional
Responsibility Officer responded that Loune's relationships with the two men were not "covered" relationships under
the conflict of interest guidelines but deferred to Sloman or Menchel "to make die call." Thereafter, Sloinan authorized
bowie to continue supervising the case During his OPR interview, Lourie asserted that his personal connection to
did not influence his handling of the case.
Lourie was friends with
22
CA/Aronberg-000490
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736128
• •
"'anything' she wanted" without the necessity of legal process. ma sked to meet with Villafafia
and Sloman to discuss the Epstein investigation, but Villafafia ec med.
Shortly thereafter, Lilly Ann a former AUSA, contacted Sloman and advised him
that she also represented Epstein. was employed by the USAO from 2000 to September
2005 and had been a Deputy Chief o t e SAO's Major Crimes section at the time Menchel was
the Chief. According to Sloman's contemporaneous email recounting the conversation, when
indicated to him that his participation in II with Villafana led the defense team
to believe that the matter had been "elevated" within t e SAO, Sloman tried to "disabu " her of
that notion. said that Epstein "wanted to be as transparent and cooperative ssible"
in working with the USAO. Despite the fact that had already made contact with t AO
on Epstein's behalf, Sent a letter to Villafa a on November 15, 2006, in which she serted
that she and Gerald Le fcTeCirt were representing Epstein and asked that the U all contact
or communications about Epstein to them. In response, Villafana req cd t t the defense
provide documents and information pertinent to the federal investigatio the documents
and information that Epstein had previously provided to the Sta Att ey's Office, and
"computers, hard drives, CPUs [computer processing units], any er computer media"
removed from E stein's home before the PBPD executed its rch arrant in October 2005. In
January 2007, contacted Villafafia to schedule a • t Villafafia responded that
she wanted to receive and review the documents before meeting with
Immediately after receiving Vi I lafalia's res n e, ez bypassed Villafana and phoned
Lourie, with whom she had worked when she w a SA, to press for a meeting. Lourie agreed
to meet with and Lefcourt. Lourie o Villafafia that UM was concerned
that federal charges were "imminent," w o m t with the USA() and "make a pitch," and
promised that once given the opportuni dos lithe USAO "wanted to interview Epstein, that
would be a possibility." Villafafia t that had not yet provided the documents
she had promised, and Villafafia n d documents not the pitch." Lourie explained to OPR,
however, that it was his practi n eetings to defense counsel; he considered it "good for
us" to learn the defense th of a e and believed that "information is power." Lourie further
explained that learning what o ation the defense viewed as important could help the USAO
form its strategy and ermine w ich counts relating to which victims should be charged. Lourie
also believed that as ral matter, prosecutors should grant defense requests to make a
presentation, b se "[ rt of [the] rocess is for them to believe they are heard." In addition to
agreeing to ring, Lourie sent a narrowed document request, which responded to
p1 t that the USA s ear ier request was overbroad but which retained the
demand mputer-related items removed from Epstein's home. The meeting was scheduled
for F 2007, and Lourie asked to provide the documents and materials to the
anualy 25, 2007.
Ilafafia did not agree with Laurie's decision to meet with and Lefcourt. Indeed,
da s after Lourie agreed to the meeting, Villafafia alerted him t liad spoken again with two
and learned that Epstein was not going to provide the requested documents. As Villafafia
to Laurie, "I just get to listen to the pitch and hear about how the girls are liars and drug users."
She told OPR that in her view, "it was way too early to have a meeting," she already knew what
the defense would say, and she could not see how a meeting would benefit the federal investigation.
She explained to Lourie the basis for her objections to the meeting, but Lourie "vehemently"
23
CA/Aronberg-000491
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736129
• •
disagreed with her position. Villafafia and a West Palm Beach AUSA with whom she was
consulting about the investigation, and who served for a time as her co-counsel, both recalled
meeting with Lourie in his office to express their concerns about meeting with defense counsel.
They perceived Lourie to be dismissive of their views.' According to Villafafia, Laurie believed
that a meeting with the defense attorneys would be the USAO's chance to learn the defense's legal
theories and would position the USA0 to arrange a debriefing of Epstein, through which the USAO
might learn information helpful to a rosecution. Villafafia told OPR, however, that while this
strategy might make sense in a collar crime case, she did not believe it was appropriate or
worthwhile in a child exploitation case, in which the perpetrator would be unlikely to nfess to
the conduct. Villafafia also told OPR that she did not believe the USAO could extra ation
about the defense legal theories without telling the defense the precise crimes the O i ded
to charge, which Villafafia did not want to reveal.
6. February 2007: Defense Counsel Met with Lo afana and
Present the Defense Objections to a Federal
At the February I, 2007 meeting with Lourie and Villafafi San and Lefcourt set out
arguments that would be repeated throughout the months-long ampaign to stop the federal
investigation. In support of their arguments, the defense att ided a 25-page letter, along
with documents the defense had obtained from the estigative file and potential
impeachment material the defense had developed relay to ictims.
In the letter and at the meeting, defens ed that (1) the allegations did not
provide a basis for the exercise of federal ' , (2) the evidence did not establish that
Epstein knew girls who provided him with ages ere minors; (3) no evidence existed proving
that any girl traveled interstate to eng in nth Epstein; (4) the USAO would violate the
Petite policy by initiating federal p a matter that had already been addressed by the
state; and (5) there were "forensic e o prosecution, referring to witness credibility issues.
The letter suggested that "mis a a inaccurate reports" from the PBPD "may well have
affected" the USAO's view The letter also claimed that the State Attorney's Office
had taken into account the " g histories of lies, illegal drug use, and crime" of the state's
two principal victims identify y name in the letter), and argued that "with witnesses of their
ilk," the state might ha unable "to make any case against Epstein at all." Lourie told OPR
that he did not I the eeting, but Villafafia told OPR that neither she nor Laurie was persuaded
by the defens sentati n at this "listening session."
eb uary — May 2007: VillafaAa and the FBI Continue to Investigate;
llafana Drafts a Prosecution Memorandum and Proposed Indictment for
USAO Managers to Review
orrespondence between Villafafia and defense counsel show that Villafafia carefully
considered the defense arguments concerning the victims' credibility, and she reviewed audiotapes
35 Villafana told OPR that in a "heated conversation- on the subject, Lourie told them they were not being
"strategic thinkers." Her fellow AUSA remembered Lourie's "strategic thinker" comment as well, but recalled it as
having occurred later in connection with another proposed action in the Epstein case. Lourie did not recall making
the statement but acknowledged that he could have.
24
CAJAronberg-000492
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736130
• •
of the state's victim interviews and partial transcripts provided by defense counsel.3' Villafaaa
also pursued other investigative steps, which included working with the FBI to locate an expert
witness to testify about the effect of sexual abuse on victims. She also continued collecting records
relating to Epstein's business entities, in part to help establish the interstate nexus of Epstein's
activity. On several occasions, Villafaaa sought guidance from CEOS, which had considerable
national expertise in child exploitation cases, about legal issues relating to the case, such as
whether charges she was considering required proof that the defendant knew a minor victim's age.
USAO procedures generally required that a proposed indictment be accompan(ed by a
prosecution memorandum from the AUSA handling the case. The prosecution memorandum was
expected to explain the factual and legal bases for the proposed charges and address any significant
procedural, factual, and legal issues of which the AUSA was aware; witnearelatcd issues;
expected defenses; and sentencing issues. Routine prosecutions could be approved by lower-level
supervisors, but in high-profile or complex cases, proposed indictments might require review and
approval by the Criminal Division Chief, the FAUSA, or even the U.S.(Attorney
Accordingly, Villafana drafted an 82-page prosecution m oratifturri directed to Acosta,
Sloman, Menchel (who had replaced Sloman as the USAO's C a ivision Chief the previous
October, when Sloman became the FAUSA), Lourie, and h m e supervisor, dated May I,
2007, supporting a proposed 60-count indictment that cha n with various federal crimes
relating to sexual conduct with and trafficking of mi nors. T secution memorandum set forth
legal issues and potential defenses relating to eac r os arge; explained why certain other
statutes were rejected as proposed charges; d ri the evidence supporting each count and
potential evidentiary issues; and addressed t d credibility of each of the victims who
were expected to testify at trial.
Villafaaa's immediate supery
had only a few small edits to th
immediate supervisor told OP
case was complex and that V
PR that she read the prosecution memorandum,
t, and advised Lourie that she approved of it. The
tewed the case as prosecutable, but recognized that the
uld need co-counsel.
In his OPR i erview, *e recalled thinking that the prosecution memorandum and
proposed indictment " thorough and contained a lot of hard work," but that he wanted to
employ a diffe it stra y for charging the case, focusing initially only on the victims that
presented "th = ghest ses" for Epstein—meaning those about whom Epstein had not already
raised cred. ty s to use in cross-examination. Lourie told OPR that although he had some
concerns he case—particularly the government's ability to prevail on certain legal issues
and ty challenges some of the victims would face—he did not see those concerns as
in e and was generally in favor of going forward with the prosecution.
(though indictments coming out of the West Palm Beach office usually did not require
approval in Miami, in this case, Lourie understood that Iblecause there was front office
involvement from the get-go," he would not be the one making the final decision whether to go
J6 Lefeoun and provided the recordings during a follow-up meeting with Lowrie and Vilbfaria on
Febniary 20, 2007, and there furnished the transcripts.
25
CA/Aronberg-000493
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736131
• •
forward with charges in this case. Lourie forwarded a copy of the prosecution memorandum to
Menchel. Lourie's transmittal message read:
did a 50 [sic] page pros memo in the Epstein case. I am going
to start reading it tonight.. . . It's a major case because the target is
one of the richest men in the country and it has been big news. He
has a stable of attorneys, inciliDershowitz, [Roy] Black,
Lefcourt, , and Lily [sic) . Jeff Sloman is familiar
with the investigation. The state intentionally torpedoed it in the
grand jury so it was brought to us. I am going to forward the pros
memo to you so you can start reading it at the same time I do. Th
FBI is pushing to do it in Mid [sic] May, which I think is not criti
but we might as well get a jump on it. I have some ideas ab
indictment (needs to be ultra lean with only clean victims
not sending that yet.
Lourie explained to OPR that by "clean" victims, he meant thosg,€or the defense did not
have impeachment evidence to use against them.
A few days later, Lourie emailed Menchel, asld el had read the prosecution
memorandum. Lourie directed Menchel's attenti o lar pages of the prosecution
memorandum, noting that the "keys" were whethe could prove that Epstein traveled
for the purpose of engaging in sexual acts, and tke at some minor victims told Epstein they
were 18.31 Lourie asked for Menchel's "very geiaal o pion as to whether this is a case you think
the office should do," and reminded Menckrel that the State Attorney's Office "went out of their
way to get a no-bill on this .. . and thus y chayged adult solicitation, which they would bargain
away to nothing."
During his OPR intervi said that Lourie's email transmitting the prosecution
memorandum was his "offic. I ins tion" to the case and at that point in time, he had never
heard of Epstein and had no fo tion about his background. He recalled that the USAO had
been asked to review the case use the state had not handled it appropriately. Menchel told
OPR, however, that h tle memory about the facts of the case or what contemporaneous
opinions he fo abo it.
Acos to OPR that he could not recall whether he ever read Villafalla's prosecution
memora explaining that he "would typically rely on senior staff," who had more
pros t rience, and that instead of reading the memorandum, he may have discussed the
an, Menchel, and Lourie, who he assumed would have read the document. Acosta
37 n various submissions to the USAO, the defense contended that the federal statute required proof that
engaging in a sexual act was the "paramount or dominant purpose" of Epstein's travel, but that Epstcin's travel was
motivated by kis desire to live outside of New York for over half of each year for tax purposes. The defense also
asserted Mat the federal statutes at issue required proof that the defendant knew the victims were under 18, but that
Epstein "took affirmative steps to ensure that every woman was at least 18 years of age." In her prosecution
memorandum, however, Villafaila set forth her conclusion that the statute only required proof that engaging Ma sexual
act was one of the motivating factors for the navel. She also concluded that the statutes did not require proof that the
defendant knew the victims were minors.
26
CAJAronberg-000494
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736132
• •
recalled generally having conversations with Sloman and Menchel about the Epstein case, but he
could not recall with specificity when those conversations took place or the details of the
discussions.
Sloman told OPR that because of his broad responsibilities as FAUSA, he left it to
Menchel, as a highly experienced trial attorney and the Criminal Division Chief, to work directly
with Acosta, and Sloman recalled that it was Menchel and Lourie who conducted a "granular
review" of the charging package. Acosta confirmed to OPR that Sloman and Menchel "were a
team" who became involved in issues as needed, and if Sloman perceived that Menchel w4s taking
the lead on the Epstein matter, Sloman may have deferred to Menchel.
C. May — June 2007: Miami Managers Consider the Prosecutio or ndum
and Proposed Charges
When she submitted the prosecution memorandum, Villafaha i Mile charges by
May 15, 2007, and the FBI planned to arrest Epstein immediately the fter. Villafaha, however,
had not obtained authorization to indict on that schedule. The manage tami wanted time to
analyze the lengthy prosecution memorandum and consider ntial charges and charging
strategy. Just a few days after he received the prosecution a um, and after learning that
the FBI was planning a press conference for May 15, Slo n vt Villafana that "Whis Office
has not approved the indictment. Therefore, please dA us to anything at this time.""
• On May 10, 2007, with Menchel's currence, Lourie sent a copy of Villafaha's
prosecution memorandum to CEOS Chief A Ooyerbaan, who in turn sent it to his deputy
and another CEOS attorney, asking the ass the legal issues involved in the case and
describing it as a "highly sensitive" cas "a high profile, very rich defendant."" After
CEOS reviewed the materials, Oost ponded to Lourie with an email stating that the
memorandum was "exhaustive" a w e" and noting that Villafaha "has correctly focused
on the issues as we see them." zed CEOS's analysis of the application of key facts to
the statutes she proposed charging, curring in Villafaha's assessments but noting that further
research was needed to determinjs whether certain statutes required proof of a defendant's
knowledge of victims'ages Oo. rbaan offered to assign a CEOS attorney to work with Villafana
on the case. Lourie forwarded Oosterbaan's email to Menchel and Villafaha.
Mean le, con/fnporaneous emails show that Lourie, at least, was already considering
an early resol f the case through a pre-indictment plea agreement." After Lourie spoke with
Js L ne hi I r reported to Menchel drat the FBI led "wanted to arrest (Epstein) in Idyl Virgin Islands during a
beauty . . where he is a judge." The case agent recalled that she and her co-case agent were disappointed
wit mon and that the Supervisory Special Agent was "extremely upset" about it. ARer the federal
um estiwion began, and except for his self-surrender to face the state indictment in July 2006. Epstein largely stayed
away from West Palm Beach, only returning occasionally.
39 Before becoming Chief of CEOS, Oosterbaan was an AUSA at the USAO for about ten years and was good
friends with Laurie.
In her prosecution memorandutn, Villafafla argued against pre-charge plea negotiations. arguing that it "may
widermine our arguments for pretrial detention." Menclicl, however, told OPR that he did not consider strengthening
a bail argument to be a valid ground to decline to meet with defense counsel about a case.
27
CA/Aronberg-000495
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736133
• •
the FBI squad supervisor on May 9, 2007, to explain that charges against Epstein would not be
quickly approved, he reported to Menchel that the FBI was "not happy" about the delay, adding,
"I did not even tell them I think we should bring [Epstein] in, once we decide to charge him, and
offer a pre-indictment deal, figuring a judge might never agree to such a deal post indictment. That
would have sent them that the roof." Lourie explained to OPR that he thought a judge, after seeing
an indictment charging the full nature and scope of Epstein's conduct, might not agree to a plea
involving substantially less time or to dismiss substantive charges.'
Lourie told OPR that despite Oosterbaan's favorable opinion of the case, "[t]his as . . . a
bit of uncharted territory," involving facts that were unlike the case law Oosterba cited.
Although Lourie had some concerns about the legal issues and about the witness p bly"
did not see any impediment to going forward with the case; in fact, Lourie "w in favor of
walking away, which is what the defense wanted.[the USAO] to do." But ' "thought
we could have won and we could have prevailed through appeal," he "di the odds were
nearly as good as you want in a criminal case, and . . . the things that in [through a
plea agreement] were much more than [in] a normal criminal case," i whi the only cost of a
loss would be that the defendant did not go to jail. Lourie t OP at to the best of his
recollection, he thought a plea agreement would be a good r' although the government
might have to "give up some jail time," there were other b plea, such as the ability to
require Epstein to register as a sex offender and the of monetary damages for the
victims. Lourie recalled "thinking that this case sho t d we should set it up so we can
settle it" by, for example, charging Epstein by then negotiating a plea to limited
charges in a criminal information. Villafaha told that she agreed with Lourie that a criminal
complaint charging an "omnibus conspiracy" 'all of the information related to what the
case was about" would be a good way to" oving" toward a pre-indictment plea.
Although Lourie and Villa
resolution, there was no guarante
work together to shape an indj
[M]arie
I belie that Epps ein's att[omeys] are scared of the victims they
don't pstein has no doubt told them that there were many.
s I b teve the f[ir]st indictment should contain only the victims
have nothing on at all. We can add in the other ones that have
ce [sic] pages and prior testimony in a [superseding
dictment]. I think for the first strike we should make all their
ightmare[]s come true. Thoughts?42
a p e-indictment plea agreement was a desired
in would agree to plead guilty, and they continued to
May 10, 2007, Lourie emailed Villafaha:
41 Lourie explained to OPR that the government's dismissal of counts in an indictment requited the court's
approval, and that, while "it's rare," it was possible Mai a judge, seeing the nature and extent of Epstein's conduct as
set forth in an extensive indictment, might not allow substantive counts to be dismissed.
12 Louric's references to MySpace pages and "prior testimony" referred to the impeachment information
brought forward by defense counsel.
28
CA/Aronberg-000496
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736134
• •
Lourie followed up his email to Villafatia with one to Menchel, in which Lourie reiterated
the potential benefits of a pre-indictment plea, explaining that he and Villaftha believed "the best
thing to do is charge Epstein by complaint, assuming we decide to charge him. . . . The
[sentencing] guidelines will be in the 20 year range, so we would need to plead him to one or two
conspiracies to cap him and there is no telling if a judge would go for that once we indict."43
Menchel responded that he and Acosta would read the prosecution memorandum and "[w]e can
discuss after that."
Later that afternoon, Villafana sent Laurie an email, which Lourie forwarded to Menchel,
explaining that a "conservative calculation" of Epstein's potential sentencing exposure under the
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines would be 168 to 210 months, and that in her view, the is warranted
an upward departure from that range. Villafafta told OPR that although Louri4roposed some
changes to the draft indictment, at that point no one had told her that the evid ce was insufficient
support the proposed charges or that the office did not want to go fonv with the case
In an email to Acosta and Menchel on May 11, 2007, Lo
Epstein by complaint and seeking a pre-indictment plea:
My current thoughts are that we should char
agree with the charging strategy as it is no
we only need to get on the same page as
the conduct and whether the condu
I think the answer to both is yes, a
of the statutes as this is uncha
decide later what the [chargi
and which victims shoul
I also think if we
complaint, acres
a pre-indictm
a plea than if
counts. We wi
plea at
tntto dis IS
mended charging
t sure that I
point I think
he statutes cover
we should charge.
is some risk on some
to some degree. We can
] should look like precisely
o go forward, we should start with a
him ... and then try to see if he wants
That would give us more control [over]
him and need the court's approval to dismiss
to cap him with conspiracy counts to make a
nd the court could give us a hard time with that if we
indicted counts.
Althosgh r supervisors were communicating among themselves about the case, Villafafia
was una re th discussions and was frustrated that she was not receiving more feedback.
She rued preparing to charge Epstein. Two weeks after submitting the prosecution
me ora • , on May 14, 2007, Villafana informed Laurie and Menchel by email that Epstein
o New Jersey from the Virgin Islands, and she asked whether she could file charges
the n day. Menchel responded that "[y]ou will not have approval to go forward tomorrow,"
and explained that Acosta "has your [prosecution] memo," but was at an out-of-town conference,
adding, "This is obviously a very significant case and [A]lex wants to take his time making sure
13 Lourie told OPR that he was referring to one or two counts of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the general
"omnibus" federal conspiracy statute that carries a maximum sentence of five yeas.
29
CNAronberg-000497
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736135
he is comfortable before proceeding." Menchel told Villafafta he had "trouble understanding" why
she was in a "rush" "given how long this case has been pending.i40
OPR questioned Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta about the timeline for reviewing
the prosecution memorandum and the proposed charges. Acosta and Menchel believed Villafafta's
timeline was unrealistic from the start. Acosta told OPR that Villafaiia was "very hard charging,"
but her timeline for filing charges in the case was "really, really fast." Menchel described Villafaha
as "out over her skis a little bit" and "ahead of Acosta in terms of his analysis of the case.'
Menchel said it was clear to him that Acosta "was going to be the one making the about
whether to go forward with charges, and Acosta needed more time to make a decisi enchel
told OPR, "This [was] not a case [we were] going to review in two weeks and e a sion
on." Sloman told OPR that although he did not conduct a "granular review" e pr posed
charges, he believed Menchel and Lourie had done so and "obviously" ha that "the
facts and the law didn't suggest that the right thing to do was to automatic Lourie told
OPR that he believed "the case was moving ahead."
Villafafta continued to seek direction from her managers
Sloman, noting that "[i]t seemed from our discussion yesterda
not do any good. Am I right about that?" Sloman respon
weeks after submitting the prosecution memorandum,
asking for "a sense of the direction where we are head
like the current draft, a complaint to allow fo
drastically different from the current draft?" SI po ded
D. Defense Counsel Seek
Villafafta Opposes
Meanwhile, Epstein's def
federal investigation and a m
2007 email to Menchel, Lour'
Villafatia espial
"In terms of the issue of wit
time concern." M hew
notes that in the
expressed co
conflicts i
testi
, 2007, she emailed
ering Alex [Acosta] will
On May 21, 2007, three
ailed Sloman and Menchel
oval of an indictment something
ent negotiations, an indictment
only, "Taken care of."46
with Senior USAO Managers, which
continued to seek additional information about the
for USA° managers, including Acosta. In a May 10,
at Epstein's attorneys "want me to tell them the statutes
PR that the "rush" related to her concern that Epstein was continuing to abuse girls:
try, because child sex offenders don't stop until they're behind bars. That was our
yr, told OPR that he did not recall Villafaria offering this explanation to him. OPR
ctive statements to OPR and in their comments on OPR's draft report, Menchel and Villafafta
unts or interpretations of certain events. When it was necessary for OPR to resolve those
h its findings and conclusions, OPR considered the extensive documentary record and the
ubjects and witnesses. to the extent available.
'5 n similarly recalled that Menchel thought Villafafta was "ahead of where the office was internally" and
that "discontent" between Villafafta and Mencliel. Villafatla was not the only one, however, who was surprised
that the lament was not approved immediately. The case agent (old OPR that it seemed "everything changed"
after Villafafta submitted the prosecution memorandum, and the momentum towards an indictment abated. Villafafta's
immediate supervisor told OPR that from her perspective, it appeared "Miami didn't want the case prosecuted."
However, Menchel rebuked Villafafta in his July 5, 2007 email to her for having "led the agents to believe that [fling
charges MI this matter was a foregone conclusion."
Sloman could not recall during his OPR interview what he meant by this remark, but he speculated that le
had spoken to Merchel, and Menchel was going to lake care of it.
30
CA/Aronberg-000498
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736136
•
we are contemplating so Dershowitz can tell us why they don't apply."47 Lourie told Menchel, "I
don't see the downside," but added, is against it." Menchel responded that it was
"premature" to provide the information. During his OPR interview, Menchel could not specifically
recall why he believed it was "premature" to provide the defense with the requested information,
but speculated that it was too soon after the prosecution memorandum had been circulated for
Acosta to have made a decision about how he wanted to proceed. This recollection is consistent
with the May 2007 emails reflecting that Acosta wanted time to consider the proposed prosecution.
On May 22, 2007, defense counsel Lefcourt emailed Lourie a letter to "con " that
Epstein's attorneys would be given an opportunity to meet with Lourie before the U O ached
a final decision on charging Epstein. Lourie forwarded the letter to Menchel a but
noted that Epstein's defense team was "really ready for the next level," rather tha er meeting
with him. Lourie suggested that Menchel meet with defense counsel, ad her Alex
would be present or grant them another meeting after that is his call." so emailed
Lefcourt, clarifying that Lourie had not promised to call Epstein's co se b. filing charges,
and suggesting that Epstein's counsel make their next presentation to
Although Lourie's emails show that he had no objecti 're senior USAO managers
meeting with defense counsel, Villafafia opposed such a t everal emails indicate that
Menchel traveled to West Palm Beach to meet with illafafia on the afternoon of
May 23, 2007.48 On that same date, Villafafia dra , which she planned to send to
Sloman and Menchel, expressing her di sagreemen g with defense counsel. Although
the email was written for Sloman and Menchel a ent it as a draft only to her immediate
supervisor, seeking ha "guidance and coun a h to proceed.
Hi Jeff and Matt -I just n voice my disagreement with
promising to have a m having a meeting with Lefcourt or
any other of Epste s tt ys. As I mentioned, this is not a case
where we will b wn to negotiate whether a defendant will
serve one yea versu o years of probation. This is a case where
the defendant g the possibility of dozens of years of prison
time. J st as the efense will defend a case like that differently than
they w dle a probation-type case, we need to handle this case
d' event an of our prosecution strategy was already disclosed
he las meeting, and I am concerned that more will be disclosed
ture meeting.
y co-chair . . . who has prosecuted more of these cases than the
rest of us combined and who actually worked on the drafting of
some of the child exploitation statutes, also opposes a meeting. We
have been accused of not being "strategic thinkers" because of our
Dershowitz had joined telboun and in representing Epstein for the federal case.
4 During her OPR interview, Villafana could not recall the meeting with specificity, but believed the purpose
was to discuss whether the USAO should agree to additional meetings with Epstein's counsel. Mendel, similarly,
told OPR that he could not remember anything specific about the meeting.
31
CA/Aronberg-000499
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736137
• •
opposition to these meetings, but we are simply looking at this case
as a violent crime prosecution involving stiff penalties rather than as
a collar or public corruption case where the parties can
amicably work out a light sentence.a9
With respect to the "policy reasons" that Lefcourt wants to discuss,
those were already raised in his letter (which is part of the indictment
package) and during his meeting with Andy and myself. Those
reasons are: (I) he wants the Petit [sic] policy to trump our ability
to prosecute Epstein, (2) this shouldn't be a federal offense, and
(3) the victims were willing participants so the crime shouldn't
prosecuted at all. Unless the Office thinks that any of th
arguments will be persuasive, a meeting will not be beneficial
prosecution, it will only benefit the defense. With
Lefcourt's promised legal analysis, that also has al
provided. The only way to get additional analysis is to ose the
defense the other charges that we are consideringln inion
this would seriously undermine the prosecutio
The defense is anxious to have a meeti t dPG to delay the
investigation/prosecution, to find out a r investigation,
and to use political pressure to stop li on.
1 have no control over the O
meet with the defense or to
will be disclosed. Howe
these meetings in a wa
I will have to ask t
agreement with
ons regarding whether to
acts and analysis of the case
I do decide to go forward with
tnmental to the investigation, then
se reassigned to an AUSA who is in
of the case.
After receiving this d th immediate supervisor cautioned Villafafia, "Let's talk before
this is sent, please."S0 Villafan d OPR that the supervisor counseled Villafafia not to send the
email to Sloman or Menchel because Villafafia could be viewed as insubordinate. She also told
Villafafia that if 'llafafic did not stay with the case, "the case would go away" and Epstein "would
never serve a in jail.
V
cha
al s
the
OPR that at that point in time, she believed the USAO was preparing to file
pstein despite agreeing to accommodate the defense request for meetings. She
on the other hand, that she feared the USAO was "going down the same path that
omey's Office had gone down." Villafaila believed the purpose of the defense request
49 In commenting on OPR's draft report Menchel's counsel noted Menchel's view that the nature of a
defendant's crimes and potential penalty does not affect whether prosecutors are willing to meet with defense counsel
to discuss the merits of a case.
1O The immediate supervisor recalled telling Villafana that she and Villafatia were "not driving the ship," and
once "the bosses- made the decision, "there's nothing else you can do."
32
CA/Aronberg-000500
FILED: PAI N1 BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736138
• •
for meetings was to cause delay, but "the people in my office either couldn't see that or didn't
want to see that," perhaps because of "their lack of experience with these types of cases" or a
misguided belief "that [Epstein's] attorneys would not engage in this behavior." Villafafia told
OPR that she "could not seem to get [her supervisors] to understand the seriousness of Epstein's
behavior and the fact that he was probably continuing to commit the behavior, and that there was
a need to move with necessary speed." Nonetheless, Villafaria followed the guidance of her
immediate supervisor and did not send the email.
Like Lourie, Menchel told OPR that he believed meeting with defense counsel as good
practice. Menchel told 0PR that he saw "no downside" to hearing the defense po t f view.
Defense counsel might make a persuasive point "that's actually going to change r " or
alternatively, present arguments the defense would inevitably raise if the case d, and
Menchel believed it would be to the USAO's advantage to learn about such advance.
Menchel also told OPR that he did not recall Villafaria ever articulating a o t pstein was
continuing to offend, and in Menchel's view, Epstein was "already and pe, at least in
Florida," and it would have been "the height of stupidity" for Epstein to ntinjre to offend in those
circumstances.
E. June 2007: Villafafia Supplements the Pr emorandum
While Villafafia's supervisors were considerin h er go forward with the proposed
charges, Villafafia took additional steps to support t ne 14, 2007, she supplemented the
prosecution memorandum with an addendum ad ire ibility concerns" relating to one of
the victims. In the email transmitting the -Mod to Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and her
immediate supervisor, Villafafia reported," other Jane Doe has been identified and interviewed,"
and the "different strategies" about how structve the charges left Villafafia unsure whether "to
make . . . changes now or wait until eived approval of the current charging strategy."
The addendum itself related to a p r I ictim referred to as the minor who "saw Epstein most
frequently" and who had alle g d in sexual activity with both Epstein and an Epstein
assistant. In the addendum Villafa identified documents she had found corroborating four
separate statements made by tim.
Villafafia told at the only victim about whom any supervisor ever articulated
specific credibili issu w s the victim discussed in the addendum. Lourie told OPR that he had
no specific r ection the addendum, but it was "reasonable" to assume that the addendum
addressed pa icular victim because no one had identified specific concerns relating to any
other victim illafana's immediate supervisor similarly told 0PR that to her recollection, the
discussionsab t credibility issues were generic rather than tied to specific victims.
The June 26, 2007 Meeting with Defense Counsel
Menchel agreed to meet with defense counsel on June 26, 2007, communicating directly
with about the arrangements. At Menchel's instruction, on June 18, 2007, Villafafia sent
a letter to defense counsel identifying what she described as "the statutes under consideration."51
51 Villathita sent copies of this letter to both Menchel and Vilbfaila told OPR that she objected to
sending this information to the defense. Although Menchel did not recall directing Villafatia to send the letter to
33
CA/Aronberg-000501
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736139
• •
On that same day, Villafafia emailed Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and her immediate supervisor
complaining that she had received no reply to her query about making changes to the proposed
indictment and asking again for feedback. During his OPR interview, Lourie observed that
Villafafia's request for feedback reflected her desire to "charge this case sooner than . . . everybody
else," but Acosta was still considering what strategy to pursue. Sloman told OPR that he did not
know whether Villafana received any response to her request, but he believed that at that point in
time, Menchel and Lourie were evaluating the case to make a decision about how to proceed.
The day before the June 26 meeting, defense counsel Lefcourt transmitted to the SAO a
19-page letter intended to provide "an overview of our position and the materials wept t resent
in order to demonstrate that none of the statutes identified by you can rightly b t the
conduct at issue here." Reiterating their prior arguments and themes, defense el strongly
contested the appropriateness of federal involvement in the matter. Among ot fcourt's
letter argued:
• Voluntary sexual activity involving "young adults-16 r 17 years of age"—was
"strictly a state concern."
• Federal statutes were not meant to apply to ces in which the defendant
reasonably believed that the person with q gaged in sexual activity was
18 years of age.
• One of the chief statutes the U ocused upon, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), was
intended to address use of th tern prey upon child victims through "interne'
trolling," but Epstein did n u Internet to lure victims.
• The "travel" statut 8 . § 2423(b), prohibits travel "for the purpose of
engaging in illi • I duct, but Epstein traveled to Florida to visit family,
oversee his Fl flight operations, and "engage in the routine activities of
daily living."
Lefcourt also argued at "irregularities" had tainted the state's case and would "have a
significant impac on a f eral prosecution."52
Louri o Menchel, with a copy to Villafafla, an email dividing the defense arguments
into"w d ' tronger" points. Lourie disagreed with the argument that 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)
was li ntemet trolling," and described this as "our best charge and the most defensible
for fede est." On the other hand, Lourie believed the defense argument that Epstein did not
tra ride "'with the purpose" of engaging in illicit sex with a minor was more persuasive.
Lefcoun, he told OPR that he "wouldn't take issue" with Villafaita's claim that he had done so. Menchel also told
OPR that he did not recall Villafafia objecting at that point to providing the information to the defense.
Lefcourt claimed there were deficiencies in the PBPD search warrant and "material missiateinents and
omissions" in thc PBPD probable cause affidavit. As an example, he contended that the police had lacked probable
cause to search for videotapes, "since all the women who were asked whether they had been videotaped denied
knowledge of any videotaping" (Emphasis in original).
34
CA/Aronberg-000502
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736140
• •
Lourie opined that the government could argue "that over time [Epstein] set up a network of illegal
high school massage recruits that would be difficult to duplicate anywhere else," which supported
the conclusion that the massages must have been a motivating purpose of his travel, if not the sole
purpose. However, Lourie expressed concern about "getting to the jury" on this issue and noted
that he had not found a legal case factually on point. Villafafia told OPR that she disagreed with
Laurie's analysis of the purpose of travel issue and had discussed the matter with him." Villafaea
also recalled that there were aspects of the defense submissions she and her colleagues considered
"particularly weak."
On June 26, 2007, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, Villafafia, the case agent, and th W t Palm
Beach squad supervisor met at the Miami USAO with Epstein attorneys Dershowitz, ack,
Lefcourt, and MI. Dershowitz led the defense team's presentation. From the SAO
perspective, the meeting was merely a "listening session."54 Echoing th argumers made in
Lefcourt's letter, Dershowitz argued that the USAO should permit the t to ndle the case
because these were "traditionally state offenses." The case agent r e uncomfortable
that the defense was asking questions in an attempt to gain info ati about the federal
investigation, including the number of victims and the types tact that had been
involved.
Villafaha told OPR that when Epstein's attome a e7lheeting, they appeared to be
"under the impression that they had convinced us not t ut Menchel told OPR,"[T]hey
obviously did not persuade" the USAO because "w dl drop the investigation." According
to Villafana, Lourie, and Menchel, during a meeting discussion at which Lourie
expressed concern about the purpose of tray enchel raised issues related to general
credibility of the victims, the prevailing se on he USAO participants was that the defense
presentation had not been persuasive. laf old OPR that she "left [the meeting] with the
impression that we were continuing ing charges.
IV. ACOSTA DECIDES EPSTEIN A TWO-YEAR STATE PLEA TO
RESOLVE THE VESTIGATION
USAO interna communications show that in July 2007, Acosta developed, or adopted, the
broad outline of an a that could resolve the federal investigation. The agreement would
leave the case i state rt by requiring Epstein to plead guilty to state charges, but would
accomplish t goals important to the federal prosecutors: Epstein's incarceration; his
registratio a s I offender, and a mechanism to provide for the victims to recover monetaryO
sr VillafaAa also told OPR that Lourie had, at times, expressed concern about the prosecution's ability to prove
Epstein vledge of the victims' ages, particularly with regard to those who mere 16 or 17 at the time they provided
massages.
sr In his written response to OPR, Menchel indicated that he had no independent recollection of the June 26,
2007 meeting. In his OPR interview, Menchel said that although he had little memory of the meeting, to the best of
his recollection the USAO simply listened to thc defense punctuation, and in a contemporaneous email, Menchel
opined that he viewed tic upcoming June 26 meeting as "more as [the USAOI listening and them presenting their
position."
35
CA/Aronberg-000503
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736141
• •
damages.ss During a two-month period, the subject attorneys were involved to varying degrees in
convening the broad outline into specific terms, resulting in the NPA signed by Epstein on
September 24, 2007. The subjects, including Acosta, were generally able to explain to OPR both
the larger goals and the case-related factors they likely considered during the process of
conceptualizing, negotiating, and finalizing this resolution. However, the contemporaneous emails
and other records do not reflect all of the conversations among the decision makers, and their
deliberative and decision-making process is therefore not entirely clear. In particular, Menchel
and Acosta had offices located near each other and likely spoke in person about the case, but
neither had a clear memory of their conversations. Therefore, OPR could not determine4ll of the
facts surrounding the development of the two-year state plea resolution or the NPA.
In the following account, OPR discusses the initial key decision to the federal
investigation through state, rather than federal, charges, and sets forth ma numerous
communications that reflect the negotiations between the parties that led to the fi I PA. OPR
questioned each of the subjects about how the decision was reached t 'purs tate resolution,
and OPR includes below the subjects' explanations. The subject me ones of particular
conversations about this topic were unclear, but from their statem to a general consensus
emerged that there were overlapping concerns about the of the legal theories, the
willingness of the victims to testify, the impact of a trial o the overall strength of the
case that had been developed at that time, and the unce the USAO's ability to prevail
at trial and through appeal. In addition, Acosta was out usurping the state's authority
to prosecute a case involving an offense that was t rti na andled by state prosecutors. Based
on this evidence, OPR concludes that Acosta have formulated the initial plan to resolve
the matter through a state plea. In any even owledged to OPR that, at a minimum,
he approved of the concept of a state-bas r luti n after being made aware of the allegations
and the evidence against Epstein as set fo in Villafafia's prosecution memorandum.
Furthermore, Acosta approved of the final leans of the NPA.
A. June — July 2jS.7 heJ SJ AO Proposes a State Plea Resolution, which the
Defense Rej
A few days aft the June 26, 2007 meeting, emailed Villafana, advising her that
Epstein's defense team ubmit additional material to the USAO by July 11, 2007, and hoped
"to be able to a sta based resolution shortly thereafter."' In a July 3, 2007 email, Villafafia
told Sloman, chel, nd her immediate supervisor that she intended to initiate plea
discussio "to discuss a resolution of the federal investigation that could
ss require that a person convicted of specified sexual offenses register in a database intended to allow
la nt and the public to know the whereabouts of sexual offenders after release from punitive custody, and,
in son cases, to restrict such individuals' movements and activities. The Florida Sexual Offender/Predator Registry
is admi Meted by the Florida Departinent of Law Enforcement. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
of 2006 established a comprehensive, national sex offender registration system called the Sex Offender Registration
and Notification Act (SORNA), to close potential gaps and loopholes that existed under prior bus and to strengthen
the nationwide network of sex offender registrations.
ss In this email, also requested a two-week extension of time for compliance with the USAO'sdemands
for records, which included a demand for the computer equipment that had been taken from Epstein's residence before
the October 2005 state search warrant and that Villafana had been requesting from the defense since late 2006.
36
CA/Aronberg-000504
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736142
• •
include concurrent time." The email primarily concerned other issues, and Villafaha did not
explain what the resolution she had in mind would entail.57 Villafaha requested to be advised,
"pjf anyone has communicated anything to Epstein's attomeys that is contrary to this." Villafaha,
who was aware that Menchel and Lourie had been in direct contact with defense counsel about the
case, explained to OPR that she made this request because "people were communicating with the
defense attorneys," and she suspected that those communications may have included discussions
about a possible plea.
In response to Villafaha's email, Menchel notified Villafana that he had told S chez "a
state plea [with] jail time and sex offender status may satisfy the [U.S. Attorney]," t anchez
had responded that it "was a non-starter for them."" During his OPR interview, c e d no
independent recollection of his conversation with and did not remember the efense
deemed the proampIC`non-starter." However, Menchel explained that he ave made
the proposal to without Acosta's knowledge. He also pointed out th ton erous emai Is
before the June 26, 2007 meeting, he repeatedly noted that Acosta ytas st 1 deciding what he
wanted to do with the Epstein case. Acosta agreed, telling OPR that alt ugh he did not remember
a specific conversation with Menchel concerning a state-based re on; Menchel would not have
discussed a potential resolution with "without havin it with me."
1. Acosta's Explanation for His to Pursue a State-based
Resolution
Subsequent events showed that the deci solLe the case through state charges was
pivotal, and OPR extensively questioned A t reasoning. In his OPR interview, Acosta
explained the various factors that influen eci n to pursue a state-based resolution. Acosta
said that although he, Sloman, and Me 'eyed the victims" and "believed [Epstein] did
what he did," they were concerned " of the legal issues . . . and some of the issues in
terms of testimony."S9 Acosta ajLetc discussions with his "senior team" about how the
victims would "do on the stan
Acosta told OPR that rom he earliest point" in the investigation, he considered whether,
because the state had indicted se, the USAO should pursue it.
57 Villafa lained to OPR that she intended to recommend a plea to a federal conspiracy charge and a
substantive charge. ' 'stem with the Ashcroft Mento, which would be the most readily provable offense," with "a
recommendation that I sentence on the federal charges run con cuntnt with the state sentence, or that [Epstein]
would receive credit for time in state custody towards his federal release date." See n.65 for an explanation of the
Ashcroft Memo
so Villafaila was then in trial and on July 4, 2007, likely before reading Members email, Villafafta responded
to defy counsel regarding the demand for records and also noted, "If you would like to discuss the possibility of a
federal resolution . . . that could run concurrently with any state resolution, please least a message on my voicetnail."
Y) In commenting on OPR's draft report, Slott= stated he had no involvement in assessing the Epstein case or
deciding how to resolve it. and that OPR should not identify him as among the people upon whom Acosta relied in
reaching the two-year-state-plea resolution through the NP A However, Sbinan also told OPR that he had little
recollection of the Epstein case, while Acosta specifically recalled having discussed the case with both Sloman and
Menchel.
37
CA/Aronberg-000505
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736143
• •
[The prosecution] was going forward on the part of the state, and so
here is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign . . .
state, saying you're not doing enough, [when] to my mind . . . the
whole idea of the [P]etite policy is to recognize that the []state . .
is an independent entity, and that we should presume that what
they're doing is correct, even if we don't like the outcome, except
in the most unusual of circumstances.
Acosta told OPR that "absent USAO intervention," the state's prosecution of Epstein w Id have
become final, and accordingly, it was "prudent" to employ Petite policy analysis. Acosta
explained in a public statement he issued in 2011, "the federal responsibility" • t i ique
situation was merely to serve as a "backstop [to] state authorities to ensure th • e [ as] no
miscarriage ofjustice."6° Furthermore, Acosta saw a distinction between a i ginated as
a federal investigation and one that had already been indicted by the stat brought to the
federal government because of a perception that the state charge w mad In the latter
circumstance, Acosta viewed the USAO's role only as preventing a "m ifest mustice."6I Acosta
explained that "no jail time" would have been a manifest injusti Bu as his understanding
that if Epstein had pled guilty to state charges and received r sentence to a registrable
offense, "it would never have come to the office in the f nd therefore would not be
viewed as a manifest injustice.
rosecution in this case would result
ed the line between "solicitation" or
Acosta also told OPR he was concerned tha
in unfavorable precedent, because the Epstein
"prostitution," which Acosta described as a tr ti I to concern, and "trafficking," which was
an emerging matter of federal interest. a tended that in 2006, "it would have been
extremely unusual for any United S A ey's Office to become involved in a state
solicitation case, even one involvin teens," because solicitation was "the province of
state prosecutors." Acosta told O T saying it was the right view — but there are at least
some individuals who would h t this and said, this is a solicitation case, not a trafficking
case." Acosta was concern that i e USAO convicted Epstein of a federal charge, an appeal
might result in an adverse op n out the distinction between prostitution and sex trafficking.
Acosta also to that he was concerned that a trial would be difficult for Epstein's
victims. In A 's imauon, a trial court in 2007 might have permitted "victim shaming,"
which would been aumatic for them. In addition, the fact that the state grand jury returned
a one-cou di t with a charge that would not require jail time suggested to Acosta that the
state grand ju nd little merit to the case.62 Acosta told OPR:
Letter from R. Alexander Acosta "To whom it may concern" at I (Mar. 20, 2011), published online in The
Daily r.
61 Acosta was referring to the Petite policy provision allowing the presumption that a prior state prosecution
has vindicated the relevant federal interest to be "overcome . . . if the prior [state' sentence was manifestly inadequate
in light of the federal interest involved and a substantially enhanced sentence ... is available through the contemplated
federal prosecution." USAM § 9-2.03 I.D.
si• Acosta told OPR he %vas unaware that USAO prosecutors believed the State Attorney's Office had
deliberately undermined the case before the state grand jury. Mencltel told OPR that he understood that the State
38
CA/Aronberg-000506
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736144
• •
I do think it's important to look back on this, and try to be in the
shoes of the thought process in 2006 and '07 when trafficking
prosecutions were fairly new, when . . . more so than today, some
jurors may have looked at this as prostitution, and . . . [a] judge's
tolerance for victim shaming may have . . . caused more hesitation
on the part of victims . . . .63
Finally, Acosta told OPR that a state-based resolution offered more flexibility in fashioning
a sentence, because he believed prosecutors would have difficulty persuading a fede district
court in the Southern District of Florida to approve a federal plea for a stipulated bind' ntence
that differed from the otherwise applicable federal sentencing guidelines range."
In summarizing his thinking at the time, Acosta told OPR,
rkt The way the matter came to the office was, the state w
enough. It didn't provide for prison time. It didn't brovid¢ for
registration, and then you had the restitution issue. There werelegal
issues . . . . There were witness issues. And . ..could go to trial
. . . and we may or may not prevail. Alternative' y, we could look at
a pre-indictment resolution, and at varioutpoints, the office went
back and forth between a federal pre-indictment resolution, and a
state pre-indictment resolution.
Acosta told OPR that, in the end, "there was
part, the facts of the Epstein case at the tj
rather than trafficking, and a federal pr
that he did not view it as problemati
Epstein case played out, the fede
the defense tried to get the state
for deferring to the state" because, in
to constitute solicitation or prostitution
uld be "uncharted territory." Acosta explained
esolution of the case to the state, although as the
e "more intrusive" than he had anticipated, because
ent and undermine" the outcome.
Attorney's Office could have against Epstein by way of an information, but decided to go into the grand
jury because the Slate Atto ice "didn't like the case" and wanted "political cover" for declining the case or
proceeding on a lessgr cl
OPR, however, that the federal judges in West Palm Beach were highly regarded and were
tosecution."
that "dismissing a number of counts and then doing a [Rjulc I1 is not something that [South
'cij judges tend to do: Other subjects also told OPR that the federal judges in the Southern District
generally considered averse to pleas that bound them on sentencing, commonly referred to as "Rule
s.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)( IXC) allows the panics to agree on a specific sentence as part of
a plea agreement. The court is required to impose that sentence if the court accepts the plea agreement; if the coup
does not accept the agreed upon plea and sentence, the agreement is void. Villafarla told OPR that Rule I I (c) pleas
were "uncommon" in the Southern District of Florida, as the "judges do not like to be told . . what sentence to
impose." Mendel similarly told OPR that the USAO viewed federal judges in the Southern District of Florida as
averse to Rule 11(c) pleas, although Mendel had negotiated such pleas. Villafatia told OPR that she Ind never offered
a Rule 11(c) plea in any of her cases and had no experience with such pleas.
39
CA/Aronberg -000507
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736145
• •
Menchel could not recall who initially suggested a state plea, but noted to OPR that his
own "emails . .. make clear that this course of action was ultimately decided by Alex Acosta." He
referenced, among others, his May 14, 2007 email to Villafana informing her that Acosta was
deciding how he wanted to handle the case. Menchel surmised that a state resolution accomplished
two things that Acosta viewed as important: first, it resolved any Petite policy concerns, and
second, it afforded more flexibility in sentencing than a federal plea would have allowed. Menchel
told OPR that the state plea proposal did not reflect any minimization of Epstein's conduct and
that any state plea would have been to an offense that required sexual offender registration. He
told OPR, "I don't think anybody sat around and said, you know, it's not that big a deal. hat was
not the reaction that I think anybody had from the federal side of this case." Rather, el said,
"The concern was if we charge him [as proposed], there's going to be a trial.,"
gy p2. July 2007: Villafana and Menchel Disagree abou ed State
Resolution
Villafana told OP ''' was angry when she received Menc 's I ly email explaining
that he had proposed to resolving the federal invest: 'on gh a state plea. In
Villafafla's view, the proposed state resolution "didn't make " and "did not correspond"
to Department policy requiring that a plea offer reflect serious readily provable
offense."65 In her view, a plea to a state charge "obvious) satisfy this policy. Villafana
also told OPR that in her view, the USAM required t to confer with the investigative
agency about plea negotiations, and Villafatla did e FBI would be in favor of a state
plea. Villafana also believed the CVRA requi orne s for the government to confer with
victims before making a plea offer, but the ' t h not been consulted about this proposal.
Villafaila told OPR she had met with som he v tims during the course of the investigation
who had negative impressions of the St tto 's Office, and she believed that "sending them
back to the State Attorney's Office ething" those victims would support.
0 This policy was set forth in a member 22, 2003 memorandum from then Attorney General John Ashcroft
regarding "Depanment Policy Q5erning Charging Criminal Offenses, Disposition of Charges. and Sentencing"
(known as the "Ashcroft Mench7vhich provided, in pertinent pan:
a all federal criminal cases, federal prosecutors must charge and pursue the
no/serious, readily provable offense or offenses that arc supported by the facts
of the case, except as authorized by an Assistant Attorney General, United States
+riattomey, or designated supervisory attorney in the limited circumstances
bis escnbed below. The most serious offense or offenses am those that generate the
most substantial sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines, unless a mandatory
minimum sentence or count requiring a consecutive sentence would generate a
longer sentence. A charge is not "readily provable" if the prosecutor has a good
faith doubt, for legal or evidentiary reasons, as to the Government's ability readily
to prove a charge at trial. Thus, charges should not be filed simply to exert
leverage to induce a plea. Once filed, the most serious readily provable charges
may not be dismissed except to the extent permitted [elsewhere in this
Memorandum'.
See olso Chapter Two, Part Two, Section II.B.I.
40
CA/Aronberg-000508
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736146
• •
In light of these concerns, Villafafia emailed Menchel, expressing her strong disagreement
with the process:
[']t is inappropriate for you to enter into plea negotiations without
consulting with me or the investigative agencies, and it is more
inappropriate to make a plea offer that you know is completely
unacceptable to the FBI, ICE [Immigration and Customs
Enforcement], the victims, and me. These plea negotiations violate
the Ashcroft memo, the U.S. Attorney[s'j Manual, and all of the
various iterations of the victims' rights legislation. Strategically,
you have started the plea negotiations as though we are in a positio
of weakness, anxious to make the case go away, by telling
defense that we will demand no federal conviction. We left the
meeting on June 26th in a stronger position than when we entered,
and your statement that a state resolution would satin us takes
away that advantage. If you make it seem like the U. Attorney
doesn't have faith in our investigation, Epstein h o i we to
make a deal.
Mench
Villafafia ha
unsympa
Villaf fi
her u
Second, your discussion makes it appear t
"show" only and completely unclean't ic
Epstein's attorneys directly.. . .
I would like to make
[Sloman], Andy [Lou
and a revised ind'
raised by Epstei
of the case.
stigati on is for
ity to deal with
ion to the U.S. Attorney, Jeff
with our side of the investigation
e presentation will address the points
d will convince you all of the strength
ease direct all communications from Epstein's
told O1 he realized Villafana was "very anxious" to tile charges in the case.
"tremendous" amount of effort into the investigation, and Menchel "was not
to her desires" to pursue a federal case. However, as Menchel told OPR,
rvisors, including Acosta, were "trying to be a little bit more dispassionate," and
"not respectful" of Acosta's position. Menchel viewed the tone of Villafafia's
ghly unacceptable," and her understanding of applicable law and policy incorrect. In
pant jar, Menchel pointed out that although the Ashcroft Memo requires prosecutors to charge
the "most readily provable offense," there is nevertheless room for "flexibility," and that the U.S.
Attorney has discretion--directly or through a designated supervisor such as Menchel—to waive
the polity.
41
CA/Aronberg-000509
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736147
Menchel's reply email began with a rebuke:
Both the tone and substance of your email are totally inappropriate
and, in combination with other matters in the past, it seriously calls
your judgment into question.
As you well know, the US Attorney has not even decided whether
to go forward with a prosecution in this matter, thus you should have
respected his position before engaging in plea negotiations.
Along that same line, despite whatever contrary representations you
made to the agents in this matter, it was made clear to you by the
Attorney and the First Assistant from the time when you we
authorized to investigate Mr. Epstein that the office had c
about taking this case because of petit [sic] policy and
legal issues. Despite being told these things, you pre red a pros
memo and indictment that included a definitive date fort ern.
It has come to my attention that you led the a: believe that
the indictment of this matter was a foregone and that our
decision to put off that date and listen se attorneys'
concerns is indicative of the office ha d thoughts about
indicting. As you well knew, you given authorization
by anyone to seek an indictment j
In the email, Menchel went on e circumstances of his conversation with
and respond to Villafafia's co
Lilly cal ledltie ore, not after, the June 26th meeting. It
was an informal discai and not in the nature of an official plea
offer but rani a feel out by both sides as to what it might take
to resolve the atte As you are ASO well aware, the only reason
why this office n agreed to look into the Epstein matter in the
first ins w because of concerns that the State had not done an
atjEquat ob in vindicating the victims' rights. As you and the
ceded, had Epstein been convicted of a felony that
in a jail sentence and sex offender status, neither the FBI
or Sur office ever would have interceded. You should also know
at my discussion with Lilly was made with the US Ill m
Attorney's full knowledge. Had Lilly expressed interest in
pursuing this avenue further, I certainly would have raised it with all
the interested individuals in this case, including you and the agents.
In any event, I fail to see how a discussion that went nowhere has
hurt our bargaining position. I am also quite confident that no one
66 Menchel also sent this message to Sloman and copied Lourie.
42
CA/Aronberg-000510
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736148
• •
on the defense team believes that the federal investigation in this
matter has been for show.
Nor are your arguments that I have violated the Ashcroft memo, the
USAM or any other policy well taken. As Chief of the Criminal
Division, I am the person designated by the US Attorney to exercise
appropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are
appropriate and consistent with the Ashcroft memo and the USAM
— not you.
As for your statement that my concerns about this case hurtin
Project Safe Childhood are unfounded, I made it clear to you t
those concerns were voiced by the US Attorney." Whether
you are correct, matters of policy are always within his purvi
any decisions in that area ultimately rest with him.
Finally, you may not dictate the dates and people you wi with
about this or any other case. If the U.S. A or the First
Assistant desire to meet with you, they will I kn w. Nor will
I direct Epstein's lawyers to communica o I you. If you
want to work major cases in the distri understand and
accept the fact that there is a chain d — something you
disregard with great regularity.
yiliaftula acknowledged to OPR th Division Chief, Menchel had authority to
deviate from the Ashcroft Memo requiri ty pleas be to the most serious readily provable
offense. She disagreed, however, w resentation about her initial meeting with Acosta
and Sloman regarding the Epst tton, noting that Menchel had not been at that
meeting." Villafafia told OP e had communicated to her the "concerns" Menchel
mentioned, and she had not n opportunity to respond to those concerns."
A week later, Villafa plied to Menchel's email, reiterating her concerns about the
process and that filing es against Epstein was not moving forward:
alt y trial is over, so I now have [ ) time to focus back on
case and our e-mail exchange. There are several points in your
67 NcitlieriGlenctel nor Villafafta could recall for OPR to what concerns they were referring. In commenting
on OPR's draft report, Acosta's anorney noted that Aoosta's concerns were "the possibility that bringing a case with
se nous evidentiary challenges pressing novel legal issues could result in an outcome that set back the development of
trafficking laws and result in an aggregate greater hann to trafficking victims."
48 Menchel confirmed to OPR that he was not involved in the decision to initiate the federal investigation
Villafana characterized Menchcl's email as "meant to intimidate" and told OPR that she felt "put in [her]
place" by him. She perceived that Mendel was nuking it clear that she should not' jump the chain of command."
Menchel, however, asserted to OPR that Villafaila had a "history of resisting supervisory authority" that warranted
his strong response.
43
CPJAronberg-000511
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736149
• •
e-mail that I would like to address, and I also would like to address
where we are in the case.
First, I wanted to address the comment about jumping the chain of
command. After that concern was brought to my attention several
months ago, I have tried very hard to be cognizant of the chain of
command.. . . If there is a particular instance of violating the chain
of command that you would like to discuss, I would be happy to
discuss it with you.
The statement that I have not respected Alex's position rega
the prosecution of the case demonstrates why you h r th
frustration in the tone of my e-mail. For two and a hapho the
have been asking about what that position is. I hay( asked' for
direction on whether to revise the indictment, whetheNhari are
other issues that Alex wants addressed prior t. ng, whether
there is additional investigation that needs to a c. None of
that direction has been forthcoming, so I . . victims,
and agents all demanding to know w 't presenting an
indictment. Perhaps that lack of d' rough no fault of
yours, but I have been dealing wi x, so I do not know to
whom I should address my to My recollection of the
original meeting with Ale Je s quite different than your
summary. In that meet I s marized the case and the State
Attorney's Office's h: . I acknowledged that we needed
to do work to toll nce establishing a federal nexus, and
I noted the ti ney that would be required for an
investigation. said I was willing to invest that time and the
FBI was willi to i vest the money, but I didn't want to get to the
end an then ha the Office be intimidated by the high-powered
lawyers assured that that would not happen. Now I feel like
t is ceiling that prevents me from moving forward while
dente uggests that Epstein is continuing to engage in this
cn inal behavior. Additionally, the FBI has identified two more
ctims. If the case is not going to go forward, I think it is unfair to
ve hope to more girls.
As far as promising the FBI that an indictment was a foregone
conclusion, I don't know of any case in the Office where an
investigation has been opened with the plan NOT to indict. And I
have never presented an indictment package that has resulted in a
declination. I didn't treat this case any differently. I worked with
the agents to gather the evidence, and I prepared an indictment
package that I believe establishes probable cause that a series of
crimes have been committed. More importantly, I believe there is
44
CA/Aronberg-000512
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736150
• •
proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Epstein's criminal culpability.
Lastly, I was not trying to"dictate" a meeting with the U.S. Attorney
or anyone else. I stated that I "would like" to schedule a meeting,
asking to have the same courtesy that was extended to the defense
attorneys extended to the FBI and an Assistant in the Office. With
respect to your questions regarding my judgment, I will simply say
that disagreements about strategy and raising concerns about the
forgotten voices of the victims in this case should not be classified
as a lapse in judgment. This Office should seek to spirited
debate about the law and the use of prosecutorial discretion . . . .
(M)y first and only concern in this case (and my other chit
exploitation cases) is the victims. If our personality differen
threaten their access to justice, then please put someone on t
whom you trust more, and who will also protect their right
In the meantime, I will be meeting with the agents on and y to
begin preparing a revised indictment package tai your
suggestions on the indictment and responding t es raised by
Epstein's attorneys. . . . If there are any s tc that you or
the U.S. Attorney would like to see addre et me know.70
Villafana did not get the meeting with A a requested. She viewed Menchel's
message as a rejection of her request to make a p bon to Acosta, and she told OPR that even
though she regarded Sloman as a friend, she lbs f she could reach out even to him to raise
rnher concerns. Menchel, however, told hat r e did not "order" Villafana to refrain from
raising her concerns with Acosta, Slom e, and he did not believe his email to Villafaha
foreclosed her from meeting with A "the context of this exchange is, she is running
roughshod over the U.S. Attome I am saying to her is, there is a process. You're not
in charge of it. I'm not in cha costa's) in charge of it." Acosta, who was apparently
not aware of Villafaha's e ge with Menchel, told OPR that from his perspective,
Villafana was not "frozen ou case and that he would have met with her had she asked him
directly for a meeting.
B. V. *fail Attempts to Obtain the Computer Equipment Missing from
aim Beach Home, but the Defense Team Opposes Her Efforts
managers considered in July 2007 how to resolve the federal investigation,
one it ence they did not have available to assist in that decision was the computer
removed from Epstein's home before the PBPD executed its search warrant. Although
Villafilha took steps to obtain the evidence, defense counsel continued to oppose her efforts.
Menchel forwarded this email to Sloman.
Villafana told OPR that she later spoke to Menthe!, asking Menchel to redirect o Villafana, but that
Menchel responded it was not Villafarta's "place" to tell him to whom he should direct COMMUlliCallORS
45
CA/Aronberg-000513
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736151
• •
Early in the federal investigation, Villafaha recognized the potential significance of
obtaining the missing computer equipment. Villafaha told OPR that she and the FBI agents went
through every photograph found in Epstein's house, but found none that could be characterized as
child pornography. Nevertheless, Villafaha told OPR that investigators had learned that Epstein
used hidden cameras in his New York residence to record his sexual encounters, and she believed
he could have engaged in similar conduct in his Palm Beach home. In addition, the computer
equipment potentially contained surveillance video that might have corroborated victim statements
about visiting Epstein's home. More generally, in Villafaha's experience, individuals involved in
child exploitation often possessed child pornography.' Villafaha's co-counsel, ho had
substantial experience prosecuting child pornography cases, similarly told OPR, " was a
billionaire. We knew his house was wired with video, it would be unusual (for) sgs ne h his
capabilities not to be video recording" his encounters.
As the investigation continued, Villafana took various steps t. tlfe computer
equipment removed from Epstein's Palm Beach residence. As noted p this Report, in
her initial request to Epstein's counsel for documents, she asked defen coon to provide "Nile
computers, hard drives, CPUs, and any other computer medi du• CD-ROMs, DVDs,
floppy disks, flash drives, etc.) removed from" the residen ough Laurie subsequently
narrowed the government's request for documents, the req puter equipment remained.
The defense, however, failed to comply with the request
Villafatia learned that the computer equi in the possession of a particular
individual. After consulting the Department's er Cfime and Intellectual Property Section
and Office of Enforcement Operations abou date legal steps to obtain the computer
equipment, Villafaha described her plan i em to Menchel. She asked Menchel for any
comments or concerns, but 0PR did no d an ail response from him, and Menchel told OPR
that he did not recall Villafaha's eff n the computer equipment.
In May 2007, followin e had outlined to Menchel, Villafaha initiated action
requiring production of the input uipment by a particular date. In her email to Villafaha on
June 29, 2007, requ ed two-week extension, indicating that she hoped a "state-based
resolution" to the case would be reached.' Villafaha advised her supervisors of the request,
and responded to Sanc she "would like to get the computer equipment as soon as possible."
Nonetheless, Vil fans en ually agreed to an extension.
M hi1 pstein attorney Roy Black wrote separately to Villafaha, demanding to know
whether ilia a ad complied with applicable Department policies before seeking the computer
72 In addition, Villafaita became aware that in August 2007, FBI agents interviewed a minor victim who stated
that she had been photographed in the nude by Epstein's assistant, who told the victim that Epstein took pictures of
the girls.
73 This email led Villafana to ask her supervisors if am of them had discussed with the defense a possible
resolution of the case, which resulted in Villafana's exchange of emails with Menchel about their mspective views of
the case. See Section IV.A.2 in this Part.
46
CA/Aronberg-000514
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736152
• •
equipment." After further communications on this issue involving Black, Villafafia, and
Laurie, Black took legal action that effectively halted production of the computer equipment to the
USAO until the issue could be decided by the court—which, as explained below, never happened
because the parties entered into the NPA.
C. July 2007: The Defense Continues Its Efforts to Stop the Federal Investigation
In addition to their efforts to stop the government from obtaining the computer equipment,
defense counsel also sent letters to the USAO, dated July 6, 2007, and July 25, 2007, testing
their objections to a federal investigation of Epstein. The July 25, 2007 letter includ a engthy
"case analysis chart" purporting to support the defense argument that Epstein had no
federal offense. The July 25 letter also noted that the defense had been consultin ormer
Principal Deputy Chief of CEOS, reporting that she "supports our position wi ation that
this is not a matter upon which the federal statu[t]es should be brought to b
While the defense was reiterating its objections to the fe ml t vestigation, CEOS
expressed its endorsement of Villafafia's legal analysis and proposed c On July 18, 2007,
CEOS Chief Oosterbaan emailed Sloman, Menchel, and La stating that he had read
Villafafia's prosecution memorandum "closely," and noting that "Is]he did a terrific job. As we
opined to Andy [Laurie] back in May, [CEOS) agree[s]-,vi here legal analysis. Her charging
decisions are legally sound." Oosterbaan observed:
I have also reviewed the argum taitTed in the letters from
defense counsel. Their legal is ailed and comprehensive,
but I find none of their argu pe we. That is not to say that
all the arguments are co ely oid of merit. I expect the judge
to consider some of th is closely. Nevertheless, while the
law applicable he ways crystal clear, the balance of
available preced or h s. From the prosecution memorandum
it is clear that arie anticipated the strongest legal arguments,
scrutinized th phi le law, and has charged the case accordingly.
And, while wit is prosecution the government clearly faces a
strong rmined defense team, it is a challenge well worth
jng. I so appen to know that there is absolutely no concern . . .
out fact g the challenges this case presents.
In closin an renewed his offer to have CEOS "help you with this prosecution," and to
send " nd whoever you need" to assist.
illafana forwarded Black's letter to Menchel, explaining the circumstances relating to the removal of the
computer equipment from Epstein's home, the steps she had taken to make the required consultations in the
Depanment, and that she and Lourie had wetted together on her response to Black.
15 The news that the former CEOS Principal Deputy Chief was advising the Epstein team led to an email
exchange between Sloman and CEOS Chief Oosterbaan, who commented, "By the way, let zic know if you want me
to put something in writing to you with our position and detailing all of the child prostitution cases she supervised
with similar facts."
47
CA/Aronberg-000515
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736153
• •
D. Acosta Decides on a Resolution That Includes a Two-Year Term of
Incarceration
The next critical step in the development of the NPA was the decision to propose a two-
year term of imprisonment. Although presented to the defense as the"minimum" the USAO would
accept, in actuality the two-year proposal became only the starting point for the negotiations, with
the result that the defense continued to chip away at it as the negotiations continued. The
contemporaneous emails make no mention of any rationale for the decision to propose two years
as the government's beginning negotiating position, and nobody with whom OPR spoke was able
to recall how the decision was made. As discussed below, Acosta did offer OPR an explanation,
but OPR was unable to find contemporaneous evidence supporting it.76
While the defense was communicating its objections to the federal4niastigation to
Villafaha, Lourie, Menchel, and Sloman, Villafana continued moving tota l fill* charges. On
July 19, 2007, the day after receiving Oosterbaan's email supponing'a pbtecttfal prosecution,
Villafana emailed Lourie and Menchel seeking approval to take rther investigative steps
regarding three of Epstein's assistants. However, Menchel directed illa to "hold off. .. until
we decide what course of action we are going to take on [E, t stei which should happen next
week." Menchel told OPR that he did not specifically rec sked Villafana to wait, but
he assumed it was because Acosta was deciding what co agt on to take on the case.
On Monday, July 23, 2007, Menchel submt ' teaa .nation notice to Acosta, stating that s 4(
he would be leaving the USAO effective Augus 4,t\sik,
1. The July 26, 2007 d 'ng i Miami
Early on the morning of ThurscliOuly,26, 2007, Villafana informed Menchel that she was
preparing a new draft indictment jeciataiiting revisions he had suggested, including removal of all
but three of the "travel countcanda large number of [the] oven acts," and the addition of oven
acts and counts relating to o additional victims; she would not, however, have the revised
indictment ready in time "for r di cussion today" at their 2:00 p.m. meeting. Menchel told OPR
that the fact that he had both p osed revisions to the indictment and also directed Villafana to
delay the investigative volving the assistants indicated that he was "trying to do something"
with the case, but was siting for Acosta to decide the "underlying issue" of whether to proceed
with federal charges. \\\
AtrosiOnadithat decision on or before July 26, 2007. On that afternoon, Villafalia met in
Miami\ inli&Menchel. She told OPR that Sloman, as well as the FBI case agents and their
superviiorsTwere also present, with Lourie participating by telephone. Villafana told OPR that
she\ expeted that the meeting, requested by Menchel, would address the direction of the
investigation. However, Villafaiia told OPR that after everyone had assembled, Menchel entered
the room and stated that Acosta "has decided to offer a two-year state deal." According to
76 See Section IV.D.2 in this Pan.
77 As early as May 4, 2007. Menchel had informed Acosta that he was intending to leave the USAO to enter
private practice.
48
CA/Aronberg-000516
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736154
Villafafia, Menchel left the meeting after almost no discussion, leaving Villafafia "shocked and
stunned."
Menchel told OPR that he did not recall the July 26, 2007 meeting. Nonetheless, he
strongly disputed Villafafia's description of events, asserting that it would have been "directly at
odds with his management style" to convene such a meeting, announce Acosta's decision, and
leave without discussion. Acosta told OPR that he had "decided and endorsed this resolution at
some point," but he did not recall being aware that Menchel was going to announce the decision
at the July 26 meeting; in addition, although Acosta did not recall the circumstances of nchel's
relaying of that decision, he said it "would have been consistent with" his decision fo chel to
do so. Neither Sloman nor Lourie recalled the meeting. The FBI case agent recal at ng a
meeting at the USAO in Miami with her co-case agent and supervisors, togeth Vil afafia,
Lourie (by telephone), Menchel, and Sloman, at which they discussed how with the
Epstein case. According to the case agent, at this meeting the FBI irs 'a Epstein be
registered for life as a sexual offender, and the co-case agent advocated or until the court
had ruled on the USAO's ability to obtain Epstein's computer equipme0k)
Regardless of exactly how Acosta's decision re
communicated to Villafafia and the FBI agents, and reg
specific term, the record shows that Acosta ultimatel
resolution that included a two-year term of imprisonm
2. The Subjects' Explanations he
with a Two-Year Teroroioc eration
Villafana asserted that she was
decision was made." Villafafia told
none of her supervisors had identi
explained the decision to extent
Menchel provided no explan
did not ask for an explanati
Villafafia described the proposa
people, so 24 months j
to 24 months wit this
the two-year term was
o initially proposed the
decision to offer Epstein a
knowledged."
ecision to Offer Epstein a Sentence
about the specific two-year term before the
e had worked hard to develop a strong case, and
any specific problem with the case that, in her view,
or a two-year sentence. Villafafia also told OPR that
decision during the July 26, 2007 meeting, and Villaftula
se she accepted his statement that it was Acosta's decision.
"random," and told OPR,"[W]e're all [sentencing) guidelines
es no sense in the context of the guidelines. There's no way to get
offenses.""
that Villafaila did not appear hesitant to send moils to her supervisors setting forth her views and
re is no reference before this meeting in any of her mails indicating tint a decision had been made
year term of incarceration Therefore, given-that a meeting had been arranged involving Menchel and
and possibly most of the other primary USAO and FBI participates, it seems logical that Acosta made a
o resolve the case with a two-year state plea not long before the meeting.
79 QPR found no evidence in the documentary record indicating that Vilbfaiia had knowledge of Acosta's
decision or the two-year term before the July 26, 2007 meeting at which she said she learned of it.
so From the time the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines went into effect in 1987, they have been the mechanism for
calculating federal criminal sentences. Since 2005, the Guidelines have been non-binding, but the federal courts arc
required to consider them. As noted in the commentary to USAM § 9-27.710,
49
CAlAronberg-000517
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736155
• •
Sloman also told OPR that he did not know how the decision to offer a two-year plea offer
was reached, but he believed that Acosta made the decision based on recommendations from
Menchel, Lourie, and Villafafta. He opined to OPR that the decision was likely based on an
assessment by Menchel and Lourie of the litigation risks presented by the case.61 Sloman added
that he did not know how a two-year sentence might have related to specific charges or to either
state or federal sentencing guidelines. Lourie likewise told OPR he did not recall how the two-year
term was decided upon, or by whom, but he speculated that it may have been presented by the
defense as the most Epstein would accept, and that the decision would have been reached by
Acosta following "extended consideration, research, and discussion," among Acos loman,
Menchel, Lourie, and Villafafia."
Menchel told OPR that he did not recall discussing a two-year plea d Acosta or
who reached the decision that two years was an appropriate sentence. Me told OPR,
however, that he recalled believing that if the USAO had filed the c,onte eral charges,
Epstein would have felt he had "nothing to lose" and "undoubtedly" chosen to take
the case to trial. Menchel recalled believing there was a real risk that th SA might lose at trial,
and in so doing, might cause more trauma to the victims, particul th ho were reluctant to
testify. Menchel told OPR that he did not believe that anyone i the e looked at two years "as
a fair result in terms of the conduct. I think that was not r e issue was whether or not
if we took this case to trial, would we risk losing every if we . . . felt we could have
gotten more time, we would have, without having to e trial."
Acosta told OPR that "I had decided cl ' the two-year resolution "at some ‘
point," and that it resulted from "back and f ' • ion "over the course of some days or a
week or two." As noted earlier in this Re , cos iewed the USAO's role in this case merely
as a "backstop" to the state's prosecutio hich explained to OPR was "a polite way of saying[,
']encouraging the state to do a littl ]"" Acosta said that he understood two years'
imprisonment to have represented, the ken Epstein faced under one of the original charges the
PBPD was considering at thef outset o9he state investigation." Acosta also told OPR that he
the attorney for the government has a continuing obligation to assist the court in
its detennirmtion of the sentence to be imposed. The prosecutor must be familiar
with (lc guidelines generally and with the specific guideline provisions applicable
leis or her case. In discharging these duties, the attorney for the goverrunent
Id endeavor to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information
hich the sentencing decisions will be based.
view. Menchel and Lourie %MC "two of the finest trial lawyers" in the USAO.
noted that Sloman and Menchel were "two extraordinarily experienced people in (Acosta's' front
office had tried . . gobs and gobs of cases."
In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's attorney asserted that OPR's use of Acosta's quote, "a little
bit more," "unfairly minimized" Acosta's and the USAO's efforts to achieve justice in this case. Acosta's attorney
also asserted that the phrase was "clearly soft-spoken understatement," that the terms obtained were "substantially
more onerous than the state's alternative resolution," and that Acosta was "clearly declining the invitation to take the
State to task and soft-pedaling an obvious distinction"
OPR examined this assertion and was unable to verify that the proposed two-year term of imprisonment
corresponded with the charges that the PBPD considered at the outset of the state investigation or with the charge in
50
CAJAronberg -000518
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736156
• •
understood that the PBPD would not have asked the FBI to investigate Epstein if the state had
pursued the appropriate charges. In other words, in Acosta's view, "Mhis was, rightly or wrongly,
an analysis that distinguished between what is necessary to prevent manifest injustice, versus what
is the appropriate federal outcome to that." Acosta told OPR that he believed he had discussed his
concerns about the case with Lourie, Sloman, or Menchel, although he could not recall any specific
conversation with them.
E. Villafafta Drafts a "Term Sheet" Listing the Requirements of a Potential
Agreement with the Defense
A meeting with defense counsel was scheduled for Tuesday, July 31, 2007 Ila1 a told
OPR that between July 26 and July 30, 2007, she had "some sort of disc " with her
supervisors that resulted in her creation of a "term sheet" identifying th tests for
resolving the federal investigation through state charges. Sometime duri od, Villafana
left a voicemail message for Menchel. During their OPR intervi s, n Villafafta nor
Menchel could recall what Villafaila said in that message. On July Menchel emailed
Villafana:
I received your voicemail this morning. I
change our approach. I think telling t
resolves this in a way that appropriatel
the interests of the victims, we wil
that we are serious. While Lill
past that this would likely n
these terms before. In any
US Attorney feels comfj
The following day, July
Non-Prosecution Agreement"
before seen or heard of a non
to her." Villafana told OPR
p
this
y reason to
less the state
our interests and
charges] conveys
has represented in the
ever conveyed it in quite
s the course of action that the
gat this juncture.
Villafana emailed a one-page "Terms of Epstein
enchel, and Lourie. Villafana told OPR she had never
agreement and that it was a concept "completely foreign"
idea of styling the two-year state plea agreement with Epstein
the state indictment. OPR considered various potential state charges involving various numbers of victims and found
no obvious reasonable state sentencing guidelines calculation that would have resulted in a two-year sentence.
ss DCerred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements were standard, though infrequently used, vehicles for
resolving ccriain federal criminal cases against corporate entities. A 2008 Departmental memorandum explained:
The terms "deferred prosecution agreement" and "non-prosecution agreement"
have often been used loosely by prosecutors, defense counsel, courts and
commentators. As the terms am used in these Principles [of Federal Prosecution
of Business Organivationst a deferred prosecution agreement is typically
predicated upon the filing of a formal charging document by the government, and
the agreement is filed ‘vith the appropriate court. In the non-prosecution
agreement COMM, formal charges are not filed and the agreement is maintained
by the parties rather than being filed with a court. Clear and consistem use of
these terms will enable the Department to more effectively identify and share best
practices and to track the use of such agreements. These Principles do not apply
51
CA/Aronberg-000519
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736157
• •
as a "non-prosecution agreement" came from Acosta, although Menchel may have communicated
that terminology to her. According to Villafana, she asked that it include, a mechanism for the
victims to be provided monetary compensation through 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in lieu of the restitution
that would have been available if Epstein were pleading guilty to federal charges.86 Acosta told
0PR that he "developed and approved" the term sheet."
Before the document was presented to defense counsel, two terms were dropped from
Villafafia's draft—one providing that the agreement would apply only to already-identified
victims, and another requiring the deal to be accepted, and Epstein to plead guilty, within the
month. The final term sheet was as follows:
cos
to plea agreements, the formal conviction of a corporation in a
court proceeding
Memorandum from Acting Deputy General Craig S. Morford to Heads of Departmental Components and
United Stales Attorneys a n.2 (Mar. , 2008), available at Imps://www.justioe.goviatthivestjmicriminal-resource-
manual-163-sekction-and- ors. Villafana did not have significant experience prosecuting corporate entities.
ea A civil
criminal code
March 6, 20
for rsonal injuries suffered by victims of certain crimes is provided for in the federal
U.S.C. § 2255. Subsection (a) of the statute, as in effect from July 27, 2006, to
follows:
person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section
241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 225IA, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of
this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation, regardless
of whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor, may sue in any
appropriate United States District Coto and shall recover the actual damages such
person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any
person as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained
damages of no less than $150,000 in value.
Villafaila also told OPR that she asked that the tenns include the requirement that Epstein plead to an offense that
required him to register as a sexual offender, however, sex offender status was also mentioned in Menchel's July 3,
2007 email to Villafatia recounting his preliminary discussions with =.
52
CA/Aronberg-000520
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736158
• •
.CONFIDENTIAL PLEA NECÖTUTIONS
TERMS OF EPSTEIN NON -PROSECUTION AGttrEktgar.
Epstein plat*, guilty (not itolo,aoittenclerc) to an Information filed hy:the
"Pelml:Bfach County State Attorney's Office charging, hint with:
.(a)' lewd and lasaivious:båttery on a child, ini.iiialanon. of Ei. Stat.
'800.04(4);
solicitation of tumors to engage in prtiiiigitiolVin Vioititido
Situ. 796.03: and
(e) eitgagiue in se itn I activity wiltrininor# ellgäst.slisiesj
ini violati6nolF1. Stat. 79.4.05.
Epstent and tht *Stat‘ mothers Office
itc9initantilatitni Nit Epsttitt*v9 at lean two years in
oppnniinity.tnr yfialityaldingiadjittlicatnpg or still
prObruinn.or eontotpoity control lieuret' nt
(b)-
Epstein itgrees
and the.rightionppleal.
Epstaiii agreearthat, if nnyon
investigation file suiblinau
the pa isdiction of thetf:S.
Florida in et lit spergi
the Identified vitnit
-vinlatinita of Tit
fttker.tkiste. talk .statecinirt plea and iseenteneed,
ikitorit invest 'gain:ins.
slirig
, without any.
»14'546010g
t..
the,
dentitied in the federal
.C. § 2255.. Epstein. will notcoittest
hurt tot the Southern District of
icy; mailer .fintein witloot sonreel that
is who. while minors, were victims of
!Spites Code, Sections(s) 2422 AnWcir, 2423.
V. THE US 0 P T NTS EPSTEIN WITH KEY TERMS OF A DEAL: PLEAD
G.UIL TO ATE CHARGES REQUIRING A. TWO-YEAR TERM' OF
IN TION AND SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION; AND AGREE
NS FOR THE VICTIMS TO OBTAIN. MONETARY DAMAGES
&I the USAO term sheet was presented.to Epstein's defense team on July IL 2007,
it 't a most another two months to reach a final agreement in the form of the NPA. The
conte raneous emails show that over the course of those two months, defense counsel offered
multiple counter-proposals trithe USAO's stated terms,. and altemated.between working out the
state plea disp.ositionand.seeking an alternative federal plea arrangement. The mails make clear
that as the negotiations intensified in September 2007, the prosecutors. became increasingly
frustrated, particularly with what ihey perceived as the defense tactic of agreeing to terms and
.pro.vitionsibut then backtratking or altering the agreed-upon terms in subsequeritcommunications.
It is apparent that the defense'persigence achieved some measure of success, at least concerning
53
CA/Aronberg-000521
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736159
• •
the period of imprisonment, because the USAO failed to hold firm to its proposal of "at least two
years in prison." The USAO did, however, consistently reject defense proposals to change other
terms, particularly the requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender.
A. July 31, 2007: The USAO Presents Its Proposal to the Defense Team, which
Makes a Counteroffer
Men I loman, Lourie, Villafafia, and the case agents met with Epstein attorneys
Lefcouri, and Black on July 31, 2007, with Menchel "leading the meeting'i for the
USAO 87 The USAO presented the term sheet, and Villafafia distributed a Feder tenting
guidelines calculation showing that if prosecuted federally, Epstein faced a senteing
188 to 235 months' incarceration.
of
\ Villafafia recalled that during the meeting, Epstein's attorneys oppos the S equirement of
sexual offender registration, argued that Epstein would not be safe in prisort suggested that Epstein
serve a sentence of home confinement or "community control"' in eu of incarceration, and
emphasized that a state resolution provided greater sentencing 11 'bill / Villafana told OPR
that when Epstein's attorneys expressed concern during the meeting out Epstein's security in a
state prison and argued for a home confinement sentence,Menchel ggested Epstein plead to a
federal charge so that he could serve his time in a federa lit few days after the meeting,
Villafafia emailed Menchel, stating that she had "figur to do a federal plea with a 2-1/2
year cap."
Although Acosta had authorized a pl o te barges, emails and other correspondence
show that during the negotiations, the pa [so nsidered structuring a plea around federal
S7 Villafaita was the only witness
According to the Florida
PR spoke who hid a substantive memory of this meeting.
nett ions fact sheet for defendants subjected to community control.
The Community M supervision program was created as a diversion to
incarceration or imp sonment, therefore it is an intensive supervision program
where yolit:in,confincd to your home unless you arc working, attending school,
perfonninkpublic service hours, participating in treatment or another special
activity thaLhas been approved in advance by your officer. The program was
red to build accountability and responsibility along with providing a
ent alternative to imprisonment. While on Community Control
pervision (also known as "house arrest') you will not be allowed to leave your
me to visit family or friends, go out to dinner or to the movies, go on vacation.
or many of the other activities you are used to being able to do . . . . but it does
allow you to continue to work to support yourself and your family or attend school
in lieu of being incarcerated and away from loved ones.
Florida Dept. of Corrections. Succeeding on Co lllll tunny Control at I, Intp/Avww.de.state.n.usice/cefonnst
Succeeding-on-Community-Control.pdf.
eo Villafafia told OPR that she was concerned about a state resolution because the defense team "had a lot of
experience with the state system. We did not." Villafaita anticipated there would be ways to "manipulate" a state
SCINCIICC and the USAO would be "giving up all control7 and she told OPR that she discussed this concern with
Lourie, although she could not recall when that discussion occurred.
54
CA/Aronberg-000522
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736160
charges in addition to state charges. On behalf of the defense team,
July 31, 2007 meeting with an August 2, 2007 letter to Menchel:
We welcomed your recognition that a state prison sentence is neither
appropriate for, nor acceptable to, Mr. Epstein, as the dangers of the
state prison system pose risks that are clearly untenable. We
acknowledge that your suggestion of a plea to two federal
misdemeanors was an attempt to resolve this dilemma. Our
proposal is significantly punitive, and if implemented, would, we
believe, leave little doubt that the federal interest was demonstrably
vindicated.90
followed up on the
A
y
added, "We must keep in mind that Jeffrey Epstein is a 54-year-ol S has never
been arrested before. He has lived an otherwise exemplary life."
The "significantly punitiveaal described in the defense I olved no period of
mandatory incarceration. Instead, suggested two years of home ement, with regular
reporting to and visits from a community control officer; pa restitution, damages, court
and probationary costs, and law enforcement costs; rand• ting; community service;
psychological counseling; and a prohibition on unsupery with the victims. The letter
specifically referred to the victim damages-recovery p t the government had proposed
under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and represented that Epst ' epared to fully fund the identified
group of victims which are the focus of the I — t at is, the 12 individuals noted at the
meeting on July 31, 2007." Under the defer o the state would incarcerate Epstein only
if he failed to comply with the terms of sup ed ody. also advised that the defense
team was seeking a meeting with Acost
B. In an August 3,
Imprisonment
r, the USAO States That a Two-Year Term of
mum That Will Vindicate the Federal Interest
Villafaha told OPR t sh and her managers agreed the counteroffer was unacceptable,
and she conferred with Lourie enchel about the government's response. Villafafta drafted for
Menchel's signature a erting that the USAO considered a two-year term of imprisonment
to be the mini mu sent ce hat would "vindicate" the federal interest in the Epstein investigation.
Villafaila's d stated at the USAO "has never agreed that a state prison sentence is not
appropriat r. Epstein," but was willing to allow Epstein to enter a guilty plea under Federal
Rule of Procedure 1 1 (cX1XC) to a federal felony charge with a binding recommendation
for a nn of incarceration. Villafafta specified that Epstein would also be required to
co ity under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 for all of the victims identified during the federal
Inv non, "not just the 12 that formed the basis of an initial planned charging instrument."
90 The USAO countered, however, that it "never agreed that a state prison sentence is not appropriate" and that
"a plea to two federal misdemeanors was never c.stended or meaty as an offer." Records show that throughout the
Epstein matter, the USAO attorneys identified instances when defense attorneys misstated or otherwise did not
accurately describe events or statements. Accordingly, in evaluating the subject attorneys' conduct, OPR did not rely
on uncorroborated defense assertions.
55
CAffironberg-000523
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736161
• •
Menchel made several substantive changes to Villafaha's draft letter. He specified that "a
two-year term of state imprisonment" was the minimum sentence that would satisfy the federal
interest in the case. (Emphasis added.) With regard to the option of a federal plea, Menchel wrote
that the USAO "would be willing to explore a federal conviction" and retained the reference to a
Rule 11(c) plea. Menchel also removed the reference to the specific state offenses to which Epstein
would be required to plead guilty. Menchel forwarded the redraft to Acosta, suggesting that they
speak about it the next morning, as well as to Sloman, Lowrie, and Villafana.
The final letter, as shown on the following pages, was identical to Menchel's red , except
that it omitted all reference to a federal plea under Rule 11(c).9'
AS 9
91 Menchel told OPR that he did not disfavor Rule I I (c) pleas but knew that the USAO believed the judges
were generally averse to them. He did not recall why the provision was dropped from the letter, but "assumed" it was
a decision by Acosta. In a September 6, 2007 email. Villafatla told Sloinan that she and Menclicl had discussed a
Rule I I (c) plea, but she opined that Menchel "must have asked Alex about it and it was nixed." Villafana told OPR
that Louric, too, had told her Acosta did not want to do a Rule I I (c) plea.
56
CA/Aronberg-000524
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736162
liepart, men, of Janke,
tied..Starits....(fictittay.
szsiai#Ariviii?fitpp30%114..
40,alithisat3i5see
.941MOr" 4"'?"-CT
MA FA(7SItitrf /.
Atin•SOnai
'Re' thittgigkin,
niair. Lilly;
. _ • . • Thatik Yam your•. tettliolAti
'heft :rig :rditacia
MVO* t
l A 193404 6 § 7.
Iisid.P:4.14!abbbrswisifiti.:)10ell*
esPitiloaetege n1 1C200);1140111e,Olielteica 041*ft:devil)
inigest willItetitir viarlicatiiiiin ipljp)iwo7ittirjemiOf state imprigtnakent for..,. .
MeEpsteia. That offer was a stailinipoiat for:aelotiatiOns. it is the minimum M r Epstein.
loiltgi "sonnient that 'acid Tor tederarproiecution. The Office has
• bever sg thai a gala pri !aiii'jent5t apOrkiriiiiefortMr..Epsteini, 'Rather We.
iiilplystitelififiat if Mr. EpstEi4p#.4001to'leryft hit yin it federal petictentiely we ,
iiliailiticin 8 . as I .. -. made cleittiiii:pin follow.' 'telcillieirefiointiraiirtil Oa Ae..
i re
watildilit.eiililig , to caproha afraid! otioVictioW that allipitlhat•in. lieu a aiiji state
Oak to rat raisdaneatiorsWia pavaelittelded!li. iiii.int la an offs
Iso.woulitciiereti chit the agreeetertt 'fii.aoction:j$51littbUity applies tkiatit
Oki rip identified tittriog OW federal invfistigitibnittiatiiaspite tit)* form th'llStia.
of patinedeharlias instriteneot,
intend to [ilea loser lhigetitiottisntigs*eas:e.
As you kittio..40;frobitiry to opfostiiti:flexitilt•plee negotiations is.
gccl,upon the return titan indipaudayikat an nahcansppysttyLnedstpC016cc data
favor bfawle.ptoseetttioti,
57
CNAron berg -000525
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736163
cpck.vvuoti
AirdusT3;20.07:
If4.90
yonr?lient's dccisinti by milaitf•thun.Ayitalt.17, 1.1inVet-nitleirerf
Wiittp...ti,Atierney 40;43 why has ;nkcd me' to cominunicate llititrthe two-yeiiiter.ntsot.
iii.cateeratiOnisa.nOntnegOtiable minimum to vindicate ateih.ntifinteceat, and :at thistink,.. .
diellhoginelitierldo nvibt.ittith counsel fur Mr. Epsteiri,
Aeristi
+OO4 gla.t.e.siXiitiOicif.
• Muttlica, "MciAel•
Chief, CciM''
• 4: tgaY.43810
. 0.ciiiketi.,Letemut
AvAIOInsk*KS4Inlie
Ancticuti:tb1lrie.
Menthe" told OPR thjkt rs I`ew, the two-year sentence eStablished.1 "floor" for
negotiationsand if Epstein riected t offer, subsequent offerswoUld require him to accept more
jail time rather than less. Menchel told OPR Mottle - LIMO was "leaving out options open" by
retaining the option O a federal plea because he thought the defense was trying : . to get him
The letter's deadline of August. 1.7, 2007, for acceptance of the
r w intended to accommodate Villafanirs request that the deadline provide
time to go to New York, pursue investigative steps involving two of Epstein's
interviews, and take additional legal steps to obtain Epsteires computers if
th deal. :Menchel told OPR he considered.August 17 to be a firm deadline: " illf
e they have two weeks, -it should be two weeks." Menchel signed and sent the
y, AMgtist 3, 2007, which wastis last day at the USAO before joining a private law
into a federal peniten
government's o
her with snot r
assistants,
Epstein you.*k
le
4 4
I , 11.
firm.
The f011owingMonday, Augu.st6, 2007, Villatana contacted /vtenoW•by.emall at his.new
firm to inquire.w.hether the letter toEpatein!s counsel had gone-out on.Friday. Yillafani explained
92 Menthe' told OPR that the timing of the letter to
with his impending departure from.tly USAO.
58
was a lout coincidence!' and had nothing indO
CA/Aronberg-000526
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736164
• •
to OPR that she "wanted to know whether this letter went out. Because .. . if the letter didn't go
out we can make this all go away and restart." Menchel confirmed to her that he had sent the letter
out by email.
Later that day, the West Palm Beach FBI squad supervisor told Sloman that he understood
Epstein had rejected the USAO's proposal, and he asked when Epstein would be charged.
Villafana told OPR that the squad supervisor "yelled at" Sloman about the USAO's decision not
to prosecute Epstein federally. Sloman similarly told OPR that the squad supervisor "like
[Villafana] .. . [a]nd the agents felt very strongly about the case."93
C. August — September 2007: Epstein Hires Additional Attorne Wllkjteet Ai tv
with Acosta
1. Acosta Agrees to Meet with Epstein's New Attorn
Villaffuia told OPR that Epstein's team was "incensed" that A
them and that the USAO had set such a short deadline to respond to i
Epstein added to his team Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz, tw
firm Kirkland & Ellis, whom Acosta knew from his emplo
at the firm.94 On the evening of August 6, 2007, Sloman
didn't know Kirkland made a call into you. You wer
interviews, neither Acosta nor Sloman remembe
provide no additional information about the cgpa
indicates that the Kirkland & Ellis attorneys
objections to the USAO's involvement in
are likely to go to DC. We should strat
be made clear."
The next day. Acosta
ould not meet with
Around this time,
ent attorneys from the law
de earlier as an associate
costa: "Just saw Menchel. I
elievable." During their OPR
from Kirkland & Ellis and could
A reply email from Acosta to Sloman
ering elevating to the Department their
steilYmatter. In that email, Acosta stated, "They
We are not changing positions, and that should
[Epstein's] at ey want to go to DC on the case, on the grounds
of a process fou ., that I have not met with them. I'm concerned
that thi ay matters.
m thin g of heading this off, by (i) agreeing to meet to discuss
ral legal policy only (the only matter in which DC has arguable
93 e to Louric reporting the conversation, Sloman reported that he told the squad supervisor that "it's
a tad mo c heated" and commented, 'Ile guy is killing me." The squad supervisor told OPR that he did not
re exchange with Sloman, but he recalled the agents being "upset" with the proposed resolution of the
case a he likely would hive told Sloman, "When do we indict? Why don't we just move forward?"
91 Acosta told OPR that as a junior associate with Kirkland & Ellis from September 1995 to March 1997, he
had worked on at least one matter each with Sian and Lefkohitz, and since that time, he had professional
acquaintanceships with both.
95 Mc nchel told OPR that he did not remember the timing of the call, but he did remember an occasion on which
he entered Acosta's office as Acosta was finishing a phone conversation, and Acosta stated, "Pilo was Ken Starr,"
and told Menchel the call related to the Epstein case.
59
CAJAronberg-000527
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736165
• •
jurisdiction), while making clear that we are not talking about the
details of the case, and (ii) asking [CEOS Chief] Oosterba[an] to
participate by teleconference, thereby intercepting the DC meeting.
Thoughts?
Acosta told OPR that he had no concern about Departmental "scrutiny of the NPA scheme" and
that "[i]f anything," he was concerned whether the Department might direct the USAO to "drop
this case.""
2. Leading to the Meeting with Defense Counsel, Investigat' e s Are
Postponed, and the Defense Continues to Oppose Villa Eff rt s to
Obtain the Computer Evidence
On August 8, 2007, Villafafia informed Acosta that she had spc4elt- sterbaan, who
was willing to join a meeting with the defense; although he could not itomssao 'n person until after
August 21, he was willing to participate by phone in order "to stay n our August 17th
deadline." Villafaita also reiterated that she wanted to contact 's assistants in New York
and to interview some of Epstein's colleagues and former em 1 re. Noting that "there was
some concern about [taking the proposed investigative s sl:kwh we are trying to negotiate a
plea," Villafafia asked Acosta for guidance. Lourie also crnaild'Acosta and Sloman, asking that
the USAO "stick to our deadline if possible." Louvre pointed out that CEOS "has no approval
authority" and opined it was "a bit extreme to IfOw the defense to keep arguing this [case] to
different agencies." Acosta replied, "This w up),[at the Department] anyhow, if we don't
meet with them. I'd rather keep it here. B • Chief of CEOS] in visibly does so. If our
deadline has to slip a bit . . . it's worth it"
As a result, the investigativ ep postponed. On August 10, 2007, Villafafia emailed
Lourie inquiring whether she I ahead" with the New York trip and whether she could
oppose Black's request to ay th gallon concerning the government's efforts to obtain
Epstein's computer equipme until a er Acosta's meeting with the defense team. Villafafia was
reluctant to delay the litigatio reported to Lourie that agents recently had interviewed a girl
who began seeing Epst a e 14 and who was photographed in the nude by an Epstein assistant.
On August 13, 2007, V fa a advised Black that the USA() was not willing to agree to a stay of
the litigation. owever anchez reached out to Lourie on August 22, 2007, and obtained his
agreement to to request for a stay until the week after Acosta's meeting with defense counsel,
which w • for September 7, 2007.
a told OPR that, in her opinion, the defense efforts to put off the litigation
he computers was "further evidence of the importance of [this] evidence."' Villafafia
sus the computers contained evidence that "would have put this case completely to bed."
56 In context, Acosta appeared to mean that although he was not concerned about the Department reviewing the
NPA or its terms. he did have concerns that the Department %could decide the USAO should not have accepted the
case because of a lack of federal interest and might direct the USAO to end its involvement in the matter.
9) Menchel told OPR, on the other hand, "there could be a lot of reasons why" defense counsel would resist
"tumfingl over an entire computer."
60
CA/Aronberg-000528
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736166
• •
She believed that access to the computer evidence would strengthen the government's negotiating
position, but that her supervisors "did not seem. to recognize that." Villafaha said she did not
understand why her supervisors were uninterested in determining what the computers contained.
Instead, they instructed Villafaha to "keep calling the judge" to ask for a delay in the litigation
proceedings.
Sloman told OPR that he recalled an issue about the computers, but did not recall "what
the thinking was at the time" about pursuing that evidence or why Villafaha was "ordered to stand
down." Acosta, Menchel, and Lourie all told OPR that they did not recall Villafafia' ffort to
obtain the computer evidence or that there had been litigation relating to it. Lourie, er, told
OPR that the computers might have contained "very powerful evidence" that possi ave
changed our advice to [Acosta], or his decision making." In his OPR intervi enchel was
uncertain whether the computer evidence would have been useful, but also a to OPR,
"You always want more as a prosecutor."
On August 31, 2007, in preparation for the upcoming Septe er 7, 2007 meeting with
defense counsel that he planned to attend, CEOS Chief Oosterb tray o West Palm Beach
to meet with Villafafta and the case agents and to examine the se I He explained to OPR that
he wanted to see the file before meeting with the defense could best "represent() the
interests of the prosecution team," and that he was in ing forward with the case.
According to Villafafia, during his review of the file, p4 n old her that the case was "really
good" and offered to assist Villafana at trial.
On September 6, 2007, the day bef ing with defense counsel, Sloman sent
Villafafia an email asking, "Please refres rec ection. What is the 'deal' on the table?"
Sloman told OPR that his question re ed fact that in his capacity as FAUSA, he was
involved in "a hundred other things" me." Villafafia sent Sloman the term sheet and
explained to him, "You and Matt c and I had also discussed a possible federal plea to an
Information charging a 371 coyep y, th a Rule I I plea with a two-year cap, but I think Matt
must have asked Alex about • and it s nixed." Villafaha continued:
There a three caRcerns that I hope we can address tomorrow. First,
that the y absolute drop-dead date for accepting or rejecting
because ti ts strategically important that we indict before the end of
, which means . . September 25th. Second, the agents
ave not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which
rew (Ciosterbaan) politely reminded me, is required under the
w. And third, I do not want to make any promises about allowing
Epstein to self-surrender because I still believe that we have a good
chance of getting him detained."
98 Sloman noted that with the attention given to the Epstein investigation, "it seems like . . . this was the only
case lin the office/, but there were other cases."
59 As Villafafia explained in her OPR interview, when a violent crime defendant seltsunanders, thc government
may have difficulty winning anargument for pretrial detention or bond. Contrary to VillafaAa's assertion in the email,
the CVRA, even when applicable. required only victim consultation, not victim approval, and as is explained in
61
CA/Aronberg-000529
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736167
• •
Villafatia added that the PBPD Chief had alerted the FBI that an upcoming news article would
report that Epstein was "going to plead to a state charge" and the PBPD Chief "wanted to know if
the victims had been consulted about the deal." Sloman forwarded Villafana's email to Acosta
with a note that read simply, "fyi."
Later that evening, Villafana circulated to Sloman, Lourie, and Oosterbaan two alternative
documents: a draft federal plea agreement and a draft NPA.10° The draft federal plea agreement,
following the USAO's standard format, called for Epstein to plead guilty to a five-year conspiracy
under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to entice minors to engage in prostitution, an offense requiring r stration
as a sexual offender, with a Rule 11(c) binding sentence of two years' imprisonment_ e draft
NPA contained the terms presented to the defense team on July 31, 2007, and called for 'n to
enter a state plea by September 28, 2007. Villafaha told OPR that because she had never seen a
non-prosecution agreement before, she relied on a template she found eithe usinglipAO or the
Department's internal online resources, but she did not do any addition regarding the
use of non-prosecution agreements.10'
3. September 7, 2007: Acosta, Other At7tilcftorneys, and FBI
M ors Meet with Epstein A Starr, Lefkowitz, and
On Friday, September 7, 2007, Acosta, SI ai i lafana, Villafafia's co-counsel,
Oosterbaan, and one or, two supervisory FBI agen m t USAO's West Palm Beach office
with defense attorneys and, for the firs i and Lefkowitz.10' This was Acosta's
first meeting with Epstein's de aloe team. Vila erstood the purpose of this meeting was
to afford Epstein's counsel an opportunit t "mak a pitch" as to why the case should not be
prosecuted federally. Villafana recall hat "pre-meet" before defense counsel arrived,
Acosta did not express concern ab t ity of the prosecution or the strength of the case.
Acosta told OPR that as not "a negotiation," but a chance for the defense to
present their arguments, whi were e by Starr and focused primarily on federalism. Villafana
similarly recalled that the m ng ainly consisted of the defense argument that the Epstein case
should remain a state atter in hich the USAO should not interfere. Both Villafana and her
co-counsel recalled th addressed himself directly to Acosta, and that Starr, who had held
Senate-confirm ositi s in the government, commented to Acosta that he and Acosta were "the
only people i s roo who have run the [gantlet] of confirmation by the Senate." Acosta did
not recall nt, but he told OPR, "[B]ack in July, we had decided that we were going
Chapt nment's position at the time was that victim consultation was not requited in nutters in which
the id not pursue a federal charge. The USAO's actions with respect to victim consultation and the
DepSr interpretation of the CVRA are discussed in detail in Chapter Three of this Report.
11D he initial draft NM is attached as Exhibit 2 to this Report.
01 OPR was unable to identify a template upon which she might have relied.
ror Louric was not present. During September 2007. he was traveling between Florida and Washington D.C.,
as he uansitioned to his new detail post as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Chief of Staff to the head
of the Dtpanmem's Criminal Division, Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher. He saved in that detail until he left
the Department in February 2008.
62
CA/Aronberg-0 00530
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736168
forward, that either there is this pre-indictment resolution, or we go forward with an indictment.
The September meeting did not alter or shift our position."""
Vil'ataxia told OPR that after hearing the defense argument, Acosta reiterated that the
federal interest in the case could be vindicated only by a state plea to an offense that required
sexual offender registration, resulted in a two-year term of incarceration, and was subject to the
18 U.S.C. § 2255 process for providing compensation to the victims. When defense counsel
objected to the registration requirement, Acosta held firm, and he also rejected the defense proposal
for a sentence of home confinement. In a subsequent email exchange with Criminal.,Division
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigel Mandelker, who supervised CEOS, Oosterbjen reported
that the meeting was "non-eventful," noting that defense counsel argued "federalism" and might
approach Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher to present that argument
directly to her. ‘
VI. SEPTEMBER 2007: THE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS INTERSOND IN THE PROCESS, THE REQUIRED TERM OF IMPRISONME IS DEDUCED Acosta had dispensed with the August 17, 2007 plea de,a ne specified in Menchel's
August 3, 2007 letter, in order to allow the defense tom with h' After that meeting, and
although Villafaha continued to plan to file charges on ternbet 5, no new plea deadline was
established, and the negotiations continued through most of September.
The defense used that time to push the o mae concessions. Because Acosta was
not willing to compromise on the issue of o nder registration or providing a means
through which the victims could seek mon d es, the negotiations focused on the term of
imprisonment. As the contemporan ail ow, the USAO did not hold to its position that
a two-year term of imprisonment wa mum" that the USAO would accept. To reach an
agreement with the defense on ntence, the USAO explored possible pleas in either
federal or state court, or both rl aha spent considerable time and effort working with
defense counsel on develop' g alt we pleas with various outcomes. In the course of that
process, the agreement was is to require that Epstein accept a sentence of 18 months, with
the understanding thaLunder t state's sentencing procedures, he would likely serve just 15
months.
A. Abe Inca ceration Term Is Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months
SI,f1 the September 7, 2007 meeting, Epstein attorney Gerald Lefcourt, who had
not been pre sent at the meeting, spoke with both Acosta and Lourie, and made a new counteroffer,
prg22sing that Epstein serve 15 months in jail followed by 15 months in home confinement. On
thaflemoon of Monday, September 10, 2007, Villafaha emailed Sloman, identifying issues she
wanted to discuss with him, including her concern that defense counsel was pushing for a
resolution that would allow Epstein to avoid incarceration and possibly sexual offender
registration. Villafana stated that Lefcourt's counteroffer was "a reasonable counteroffer in light
of our starting position of 24 months," but added that it was "a really low sentence." Villafaha
103 Sloman echoed this point, telling OPR that Starr's presentation focused on the issue of federalism, but the
USAO had already decided to defer prosecution to the state and after the meeting, the USAO continued on that path.
63
CA/Aronberg-000531
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736169
• •
noted that the revised charges involved 19 victims, so the defense proposal for a 15-month sentence
amounted to less than one month per victim. Villafaha requested that "whatever the U.S. Attorney
decides to do," the agreement with Epstein should "follow . . . a version of my written non-
prosecution agreement" in order to "avoid any state shenanigans and . . . keep the defense on a
strict timeline."
Later that day, Villafaha circulated to Acosta and Sloman a revised NPA that called for a
20-month jail sentence to be followed by 10 months of home confinement. This redrafted NPA
contained a provision that specified, "With credit for gain time, Epstein shall serve at least
17 months in a state correctional institution."10' Acosta reviewed the revised NPA
it to include a statement clarifying that it was Epstein's obligation "to undertake cl•
the State of Florida to ensure compliance with these procedures." Villafaha sent
revised NPA to Lefcourt that afternoon and forwarded Acosta's propo
following day, after she learned of it.
On September 11, 2007, the court contacted Villafaha to inqui het the USAO would
be prepared to proceed with the litigation concerning the com t following day. At
Sloman's direction, Villafaha asked the court to delay the hea • t jy the court rescheduled it for
the following week. At the same time, anticipating that p ions would fail, Villafaha
circulated a revised indictment to her co-counsel and eeking their feedback before
sending it "through the chain of command." Villafah o osterbaan the revised NPA and
told him she was "still shooting for 9/25" to bri ssuming the defense declined the
USAO's offer. Oosterbaan responded, "The ng is unfortunate, but I suppose it's
understandable."1°5
That afternoon, Lourie asked V hat is our latest offer?" Villafarla responded,
"Plead to the three specified [state a 30-month sentence, split 20 in jail and 10 in
'community control,' and agree t are victims for purposes of damages. We also put in
deadlines for a plea and senten
B. September 1(200?: The USAO and Defense Counsel Meet with the State
Attorn
amended
ssi with
rsion of the
o him the
Although the A and defense counsel had been discussing resolving the federal
investigation a pl o state charges, there is no evidence that the USAO involved the State
Attorney's O t those discussions until September 12, 2007. On that day, Lourie, Villafatia,
and anon supervisor who would be replacing Lourie as manager of the USAO's West
Palm ce, and Epstein attorneys Lefkowitz, Lefcourt, and Goldberget met with State
At m Krischer and Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek. Other than Villafaha,
few nicipants had any memory of the meeting or the results of it. The available evidence
indica that the USAO made additional concessions during the meeting.
104 Through "gain time,- Florida inmates can earn a Suction in their sentence for good behavior.
Oosterbaan told OPR that he did not recall having read the NPA at this juncture and "had no involvement
with it:"
64
CA/Aronberg-000532
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736170
Villafafia told OPR that during the meeting, the group discussed the draft NPA, but she did
not think they gave a copy to Krischer and Belohlavek. Neither Krischer nor Belohlavek expressed
concern about proceeding as the USAO was proposing. According to Villafafia, Belohlavek
explained that a plea to the three state counts identified in the draft NPA would affect the state's
sentencing guidelines, and that it would be better for the guidelines calculation if Epstein pled
guilty to just one of the three counts. Villafafia recalled that when Belohlavek confirmed that
Epstein would be required to register as a sexual offender if he pled to any one of the three charges,
Lourie, speaking for the USAO, agreed to allow Epstein to enter his plea to just one state charge
in addition to the pending state indictment, and the defense attorneys selected the ebarge of
afana' s
had
procurement of minors to engage in prostitution.1°' Lourie, however, disput
recollection that he made the final decision, stating that it was "illogical" to con
the authority to change the terms of agreement unilaterally.107
During the meeting, defense counsel raised concerns about Epst time in state
prison. Villafafia also told OPR that Lourie, the other supervisor, and e m ear during the
meeting that they expected Epstein to be incarcerated 24 hours a day, yen ys a week, during
the entirety of his sentence, and they did not "particularly care" er as in a state or local
facility. Belohlavek explained to OPR that in order for Ep erve his time in a county
facility, rather than state prison, his sentence on each char_• o more than 12 months, so
that, for example, consecutive terms of 12 months and § otaling 18 months—could be
served in the county jail. Villafana told OPR:
Our thing was incarceration 24 h
I remember [the defense] talki
by a six-month count . . .
back but at the county j a
But then I said, "But i
the clock incarce
said that to av t1
would be kept n sol
ay. So during this meeting,
!'a one year count followed
n] could serve them back to
having to go to a state facility.
t, it's still going to have to be round
d Barry Krischer said yes. And [he]
being extorted while incarcerated], he
confinement.
Villafafia did not re whether she and Lourie agreed to an 18-month sentence during that
meeting, but she told in her view, allowing Epstein to serve his sentence in the county
jail was not a "egrtcessi " because he would be incarcerated regardless.
Ne
of the Se
the
of
and
"was
nor the other USA() supervisor present could recall any substantive details
I2; 2007 meeting, and Krischer and Belohlavek told OPR they did not remember
. Krischer did, however, recall that he was "not offended at all" when he learned
sed federal resolution, requiring Epstein to plead to both the pending state indictment
itional charge requiring sexual offender registration, explaining to OPR that Epstein
ing to plead guilty to my indictment, we were going to add an additional charge, he was
106 Later, the defense mtuld claim that they had mistakenly understood that the selected charge would not
involve sexual offender registration.
to As noted below, a contemporaneous email indicates that shortly after die meeting. Laurie and Villafaila spoke
with Acosta and Slosnan. who concurred with the agreement.
65
CAJAronberg 000533
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736171
• •
going to become a registered sex offender, and he was going to go actually do time—which he
hadn't done up to this point." Ktischer asked, "Why would I turn that down?" Krischer also noted
that at that time, sexual offender registration "was not the norm" in Florida, and he recognized that
"it was clearly something that was important to the U.S. Attorney's Office."'"
Acosta told OPR that he did not recall if he learned what transpired at the September 12
meeting, nor did he recall why the USAO team agreed to permit Epstein to plead guilty to only
one charge. Acosta told OPR, however, that he recognized that Villafana and Lourie needed "some
degree of discretion to negotiate"; that "in the give and take of negotiations, they mi ropose
a concession; and he was comfortable with the concession as long as the charge to w h pstein
ultimately pled "captured the conduct" in an "appropriate" way.
Although Epstein's attorneys expressed interest in Epstein serving a county
facility (rather than state prison), one of Epstein's attorneys alternative interest in
Epstein serving his time in a federal facility, and along with discussioa ab• possible state
resolution, the USAO and Epstein's counsel also discussed a possible f eral lea with a sentence
running concurrently to the sentence Epstein would receive on t alr dieted state charge.
Later that day, Villafarla sent Lefkowitz an email advising t
Acosta and Sloman, and they were "all satisfied in principle
September 13, 2007, Villafafia sent an email to Acosta, SI
identifying potential federal offenses that would yield
defense counsel, stating that she had been "spendi
to the code of federal criminal statutes—to m
federal plea, and identifying the federal statu
d Lourie had talked with
eement."109 The next day,
e, and two other supervisors,
entente. Villafafia also emai led
lay time with Title 18"—referring
there would be a "factual basis" for any
considering.
C. The Evidence Does No how Why the Term of Incarceration Was
Reduced from 24 M Months to 18 Months
OPR reviewed the cont
explain how the jail term Ep
months. Lourie had no recd
reduced. Villafafia and Acosta
Villafarla old O
s records and asked Acosta, Villafafia, and Lourie to
have to accept came to be reduced from two years to 18
of the process through which the term of incarceration was
bred significantly different explanations.
ad this flip flop between is it going to be a state charge, is it
to be a federal charge, is it going to be [a] state charge, is it
ing to be a federal charge? And to get to a federal charge, there
s no way to do 24 months that made any sense. So somehow it
ended up being 20 months and then it got to be 18 months. And
these were calls that if I remember correctly, Jay Lefkowitz was
103 Belohlavek, however, told OPR that sexual offender registration "was a common occurrence" for enumerated
state crimes, but the state crime charged in the state indictment against Epstein was not one of them.
t09 The email does not indicate wIrat the parties meant by "the agreement"
66
CNAronberg-000534
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736172
having directly with Alex Acosta, and Alex Acosta agreed to 18
months.
Villafaila further explained to OPR:
Regarding going from 24 months to 20 months, I recall a discussion
that 24 months of federal time was really 20 months after gain time,
so Epstein should be allowed to plead to 20 months' in the state.
Epstein's counsel represented that he wouldn't get gain time like
that in the [s]tate, and someone above me agreed. Later, of course,
as shown in the agreements, Epstein's counsel (Jay Lefkowitz) got
Alex to agree that Epstein should be allowed to earn gain time in
[Ste, so the 20 months in the state became at least 17 mont
Regarding going from 20 months' to 18 months, . .. this
a negotiation between Epstein's counsel and Andy or
the federal statutory max could only be 24 or 18, so 18
to. I also recall that, after Epstein's counse that t ey
wanted to proceed with an NPA and only a s e r lea, I asked
Alex why we didn't return to 20 months b n why we
went to 18 months was because that wa y to end up with
a federal statutory maximum. t 10
However, a subsequent account of t f negotiations with Epstein's attorneys,
drafted by Villafrula for Acosta several w er t eptember 12, 2007 meeting with the State
Attomey's Office, stated that "a significant co mise" reached at the meeting "was a reduction
in the amount of jail time — from [the original) proposed] twenty-four months down to eighteen
months, which would be served at the Pal each County Jail rather than a state prison facility."
s engaged in a "tough negotiation," and he was willing
e amount of incarceration time without him "second-
that he "clearly approved it at some point."
Acosta also noted to OPR that
to allow her the discretion 11
guessing" her. Acosta ackn
Based on this
decision was e to
is possible tha
him to serve
to reach
than
A to
un
of tim
OPR could not definitively determine when, how, or by whom the
the required term of imprisonment from 24 months to 18 months. It
e redu on was connected to Epstein's effort to achieve a result that would allow
e in a county facility, but it may also have resulted from the parties' attempts
n federal charges that would not result in a sentence of incarceration greater
een discussed with respect to state charges. In the end, the evidence shows that
ecl of a reduced term of incarceration from 24 months to 18 months, and the USAO
at the time that the state gain time requirement would further reduce the actual amount
pstein would spend incarcerated.
O0 By "federal statutory maximum," Villafalta referred to I2-month and 6-month misdemeanors
67
O
CA/Aronberg-000535
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736173
D. The Parties Continue to Negotiate hut Primarily Focus on a Potential Plea to
Federal Charges
During the remainder of September, Villafaha conducted plea negotiations and drafted the
final NPA, mainly with Epstein attorney Jay Lefkowitz. In a September 13, 2007 email to CEOS
Chief Oosterbaan, Villafaha reported that the plea negotiations were "getting fast and furious."
She said that the defense wanted to establish a "victim's fund" through which Epstein could make
payments to the victims, rather than having the victims file individual § 2255 court actions for
damages, which she speculated was "to keep this stuff out of the public [c]ourt files."
According to the email documentation, by Friday, September 14, 2007, pars had
moved toward a "hybrid" federal plea agreement, incorporating a plea to sta rges, which
would allow Epstein to serve his sentence for all the charges concurrent' 1 prison.
Villafaha informed Acosta, Sloman, Lourie, and other colleagues that neg ti Lefkowitz
had resulted in a tentative agreement for Epstein to plead to two fede . harassment to
prevent a witness from reporting a crime (18 U.S.C. § 1512(dX2), tch s then a one-year
misdemeanor), and simple assault on an airplane (18 U. § aX5), a six-month
misdemeanor). Villafaha reported that Lefkowitz "put in a • only 12 months, I put in a
pitch that [Epstein) plead to 24 with a 20-month recomm we decided that we would
be stuck with the 18 months."
Later that day, Villafaha sent to Lefkowitz d" plea agreement and information
mirroring the agreement in principle she had de b to her supervisors, but which she noted had
"not yet been blessed" by them. The agree that Epstein would plead guilty to the
two federal charges for which the parties jo tly recommend that he be sentenced to the
statutory maximum penalty of 18 mont ment followed by 2 years of supervised release,
and that he would also plead guilty registrable offense of procurement of minors to
engage in prostitution, for whi a nd the State Attorney's Office would make a joint,
binding recommendation that t ced to serve at least 20 months in prison followed by 10
months of community cont nfinement). Although not specified in the draft agreement,
the negotiations evidently ex e federal and state terms would run concurrently. In addition
to payment of restitut Epstein would not oppose jurisdiction or victim status for any of the
victims identified in t ral investigation—at that point specified as numbering 40—who
elected to file s ' for d ages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. A guardian ad Mem would be appointed
to communicaf ith the defense on the victims' behalf.
owever, quickly made clear that he was not in favor of the proposal. In response
to Vil ail about the potential federal charges, but after Villafaha sent the proposal to
ourie told her, "The assault [charge] sounds like a stretch and factually [is] sort of
silly. "' Laurie also told Sloman, Acosta, and another supervisor that he did not "like the assault
charge and believed that it would not "go smooth with every judge." Acosta responded, "If we
need[,] let's find a different charge." On Saturday, September 15, 2007, Villafaha emailed
Lefkowitz, using her personal email address, reporting that she had "gotten some negative reaction
Tic charge was to be based on "an incident in which Epstein 'put great pressure' . . . on lone of his fciwilc
assistants) to call the girls to set up appointments."
68
CA/Aronberg-000536
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736174
• •
to the assault charge" and suggesting a different factual scenario to support a federal charge.112 At
this point, Sloman left on vacation, and he informed Acosta and Villafafia that in his absence
Laurie had agreed "to help finalize this." Laurie spent the following work week at his new post
at the Department in Washington, D.C., but communicated with his USAO colleagues by phone
and email.
In a Sunday, September 16, 2007 email, Villafafia informed Lefkowitz that she had drafted
a factual proffer to accompany a revised "hybrid" federal plea proposal. In that email, Villafafia
also noted that she was considering filing charges in the federal district court in Mia • "which
will hopefully cut the press coverage significantly." This email received considerable a lion 12
years later when it was made public during the CVRA litigation and was viewed as evt of
the USAO's efforts to conceal the NPA from the victims. Villafana, however, explained to OPR
that she was concerned that news media coverage would violate the victi
OPR, "[1]f [the victims] wanted to attend [the plea hearing], I wanted th
the courthouse without their faces being splashed all over the newspa
was less likely to happen in Miami, where the press "in general does n
in Palm Beach."
Lefkowitz responded to Villafafia with a revised v
plea agreement, in a document entitled "Agreement."
introduced two new provisions. The first related t
facilitated Epstein in his criminal scheme. The
prosecute them, as well as certain other unna
immigration proceedings against two of the
Epstein's fulfilling the t
precludes the initiatio
otherwise in the
assistants] or
entity] for any
investigation
institut apins
ongoin 'gation.
She told
e to go into
such publicity
bout what happens
r latest proposed "hybrid"
ntly, this defense proposal
e assistants who had allegedly
ght a government promise not to
employees, and a promise to forego
ants:
nditions of the Agreement also
all criminal charges which might
rought against [four named female
of [a specific Epstein-owned corporate
arge that arises out of the ongoing federal
Further, no immigration proceeding will be
two named female assistants] as a result of the
vision related to the USAO's efforts to obtain Epstein's computers:
ps n's fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Agreement
olves any and all outstanding [legal process] that have requested
witness testimony and/or the production of documents and/or
computers in relation to the investigation that is the subject of the
Agreement. Each [legal process] will be withdrawn upon the
execution of the Agreement and will not be re-issued absent reliable
112 Villafatia told OPR that she sometimes used her home email account because inlegotiations were occurring
at nights, on weekendlsl, and while I was lawny from the office for personal reasons', and this occurred during a
time when out of office acres% to email was very limited." Records show her supervisors were aware that at times she
used her personal email account in communicating with defense counsel in this case.
69
CA/Aronberg-000537
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736175
• •
evidence of a violation of the agreement. Epstein and his counsel
agree that the computers that are currently under [legal process] will
be safeguarded in their current condition by Epstein's counsel or
their agents until the terms and conditions of the Agreement are
fulfilled.
Later that day, Villafafia sent Lefkowitz a lengthy email to convey two options Lourie had
suggested: "the original proposal" for a state plea but with an agreement for an 18-month sentence,
or pleas to state charges and two federal obstruction-of-justice charges. Villafafla so told
Lefkowitz she was willing to ask Acosta again to approve a federal plea to a five-y spiracy
with a Rule 11(c) binding recommendation for a 20-month sentence. Villafafia ex
As to timing, it is my understanding that Mr. Epstein needs
sentenced in the state after he is sentenced in the federal ca
not that he needs to plead guilty and be sentenced after
federal time. Andy recommended that some of the timi
addressed only in the state agreement, so that it isn' obv
judge that we are trying to create federal ju '
purposes.
With regard to prosecution of individuals other,
federal plea agreement language regarding the r
mention 'co-conspirators,' but I would prefer no
and all of the other persons that we could c
include a non-prosecution provision for Ep
to be the four women named in the p
prosecuting those individuals if Epst
Epstein to be the top of the food chi
else." She did not consider the pp
individuals, and no one, including
OPR that her reference to "all of th
related to her concern that if the
the court might ask f
charged, and if
agreement w
gov
ached: 3
s be
o the
for prison
n, Villafana suggested standard
all criminal liability, "and I will
light for the judge all of the other crimes
lafafia told OPR that she was willing to
spirators, who at the time she understood
ent, because the USAO was not interested in
a plea. Villafafia told OPR, "[W]e considered
wouldn't have been interested in prosecuting anyone
that Epstein might be trying to protect other, unnamed
BI case agents, raised that concern. Villafafia also told
her crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge"
ea agreement contained information about uncharged conduct,
information about that conduct and inquire why it had not been
ent provided such information, Epstein's attorneys might claim the
a o immigration, Villafafia told OPR that the USAO generally did not take any
greements on immigration issues, and that in this case, there was no evidence that
o assistants who were foreign nationals had committed fraud in connection with
thei migration paperwork, "and I think that they were both in status. So there wasn't any reason
OPR understood Villafakes concern to be that if the government were required to respond to a coun's inquiry
into additional facts, Epstein would object that the government was trying to cast lam in a negative ligla in order to
influence the coon to impose a sentence greater than the agreed-upon term
70
CA/Aronberg -000538
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736176
•
for them to be deported."t i' As to whether the foreign nationals would be removable by virtue of
having committed crimes, Villafaha told OPR she did not consider her role as seeking removal
apart from actual prosecution.
Villafafta concluded her email to Lefkowitz by expressing disappointment that they were
not "closer to resolving this than it appears that we are," and offering to meet the next day to work
on the agreement:
Can I suggest that tomorrow we either meet live or via
teleconference, either with your client or having him within a quick
phone call, to hash out these items? I was hoping to work only a
half day tomorrow to save my voice for Tuesday's hearing . . .
necessary, but maybe we can set a time to meet. If you want
"off campus" somewhere, that is fine. I will make sure that
all the necessary decision makers present or "on call," a
Villafaha told OPR that she offered to meet Lefkowitz away from the because conducting
negotiations via email was inefficient, and Villafaha wanted "to bay eeting where we sat down
and just finalized things. And what I meant by off campus i es people feel better if you
go to a neutral location" for a face-to-face meeting.
On the morning of Monday, September 17 e7f1SAO supervisor who was taking
over Lourie's duties as manager of the West Pal ice asked Villafaha for an update on
the plea negotiations, and she forwarded to hi '1 she had sent to Lefkowitz the previous
afternoon. Villafaha told the manager, "A ca . . . there are a number of things in their
last draft that were unacceptable. All of a loo les that I sewed up they tried to open."
Shortly thereafter, Villafan a new manager, Acosta, and Lourie that she had just
spoken with Lefkowitz, who ad i t was leaning towards a plea to state charges under
a non-prosecution agreemen an s ould be forwarding to Lefkowitz "our last version of the
Non-Prosecution Agreement a asked that Villafaha "make sure they know itns only a
draft" and reminded her that" orm and language may need polishing." Villafafta responded,
"Absolutely. There w of of problems with their last attempt. They tried to re-open all the
loopholes that I se s t." Villafaha sent to Lefkowitz the draft NPA that she had provided
to Lefcourt on ptemb 11, 2007, noting that it was the "last version" and would "avoid [him]
having to rein e e wheel." She also updated the FBI case agents on the status of negotiations,
noting that she ad old her "chain of command . . . that we are still on for the [September] 25th
[to bring charg ] . . ., no matter what."
Aittr receiving the draft NPA, Lefkowitz asked Villafaiitt to provide for his review a factual
roffep
t
r a federal obstruction of justice charge, and, with respect to the NPA option, asked, "[I]f
114 According to the case agents, the West Palm Beach FBI office had an ICE agent working with them at the
beginning of the federal investigation, and the ICE agent normally would have looked into the immigration status of
any foreign national, but neither case agent recalled any immigration issue regarding any of the Epstein employees.
115 Lefkowitz was based in New York City but traveled to Miami in connection with the case.
71
CA/Aronberg-000539
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736177
• •
we go that route, would you intend to make the deferred [sic] prosecution agreement public?"
Villafafia replied that while a federal plea agreement would be part of the court file and publicly
accessible, the NPA "would not be made public or filed with the Court, but it would remain part
of our case file. It probably would be subject to a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request,
but it is not something that we would distribute without compulsory process."116 Villafafia told
OPR that she believed Epstein did not want the NPA to be made public because he "did not want
people to believe him to have committed a variety of crimes." As she explained to OPR, Villafafia
believed the NPA did not need to be disclosed in its entirety, but she anticipated notifying the
victims about the NPA provisions relating to their ability to recover damages.
E. The Parties Appear to Reach Agreement on a Plea to Federal
Negotiations continued the next day, Tuesday, September 18, 2 nding to
Villafafia's revised draft of the NPA, Leflcowitz suggested that Epstein plea ml charge
with a 12-month sentence, followed by one year of supervised release w ment for home
detention and two years of state probation, with the first six months the tate sentence to be
served under community control. Villafafia replied, "1 know the e . ttomey will not go
below 18 months of prison/jail time (and I would strongly the suggestion)." Shortly
thereafter, Villafafia emailed Acosta, Lourie, and the in aim Beach manager:
Hi all — I think that we may be near the egotiations with
Mr. Epstein, and not because we h e a resolution. As 1
mentioned yesterday, I spent a i h • rs over the weekend
drafting Informations, than' greements, and writing
factual proffers. I was sup to ive a draft agreement from
them yesterday, which era ved. At that time, they were
leaning towards pleadil o state charges and doing all of the
time in state cust
Late last nighteltIke o Jay Lefkowitz who asked about Epstein
pleading to two twe e-month federal charges with half of his jail
time be ng spent in ome confinement pursuant to the guidelines. I
told hi 1 had no objection to that approach but, in the interest
o Id' lostire, I did not believe that Mr. Epstein would be eligible
e will not be in Zone A or B.117 This morning Jay
tz called and said that I was correct but, if we could get
pstein down to 14 months, then he thought he would be
igible.
My response: have him plead to two separate Informations. On the
first one he gets 12 months' imprisonment and on the second he gets
116 FOIA requires disclosure of government records upon request unless an eNemption applies permitting the
government to withhold the requested records. See 5 U.S.C. § 552.
117 Sentences falling within Zones A or B of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines permit probation or confinement
alternatives to imprisonment.
72
CA/Aronberg-000540
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736178
twelve months, with six served in home confinement, to run
consecutively.
I just received an e-mail asking if Mr. Epstein could just do 12
months imprisonment instead.
As you can see, Mr. Epstein is having second thoughts about doing
jail time. 1 would like to send Jay Lefkowitz an e-mail stating that
if we do not have a signed agreement by tomorrow at 5:00,
negotiations will end. I have selected tomorrow at 5:00 because it
gives them enough time to really negotiate an agreement if they are
serious about it, and if not, it gives me one day before the Jewi
holiday to get [prepared] for Tuesday . . . [September 25) ,
plan to [file charges], and it gives the office sufficient time to
the indictment package.
Do you concur?
A few minutes later, the incoming West Palm Beach man ed Lourie, suggesting that
Lourie "talk to Epstein and close the deal.""8
Within moments, Lourie replied to the mane • py to Villafafia, reporting that he
had just spoken with Lefkowitz and agreed "to ra obstruction() charges (24 month cap)
with nonbinding recommendation for 18 mont Epstein] gets out, he has to plead to state
offenses, including against minor, regist an en take one year house arrest/community
confinement." By reply email, Villafafia s ne to call her, but there is no record of whether
they spoke.
F. Defense Counsel Offers New Proposals Substantially Changing the Terms of
the Federal P Agreyement, which the USAO Rejects
Approximately an h er Lourie's email reporting the deal he had reached with
Lefkowitz, Lefkowitz Villafafia a revised draft plea agreement. Despite the agreement Lourie
believed he and Lefko d reached that morning, Lefkowitz's proposal would have resulted
in a 16-month 1 se ence followed by 8 months of supervised release served in the form of
home detenti n. efkowitz also inserted a statement in his proposal explicitly prohibiting the
USAO fr g, initiating, or encouraging immigration authorities to institute immigration
nst two of Epstein's female assistants.
fails circulated the defense's proposed plea agreement to Lourie and two other
supe Sors, and expressed frustration that the new defense version incorporated terms that were
"completely different from what Jay just told Andy they would agree to." Villafafia also pointed
out that the defense "wants us to recommend an improper calculation" of the sentencing guidelines
The manager told OPR that he probably meant this as a joke because in his view the continued back-and-
forth communications with defense counsel "MIS ridiculous," and the only way to "get this deal done" might be to
have a direct conversation with Epstein.
73
CA/Aronberg-000541
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736179
• •
and had added language waiving the preparation of a presentence investigation (PSI) "so he can
keep all of his information confidential. I have already told Jay that the PSI language . . . was
unacceptable to our office." Of even greater significance, in a follow-up email, Villafafia noted
that the defense had removed both the requirement that Epstein plead to a registrable offense and
the entire provision relating to monetary damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255.
In the afternoon, Villafafia circulated her own proposed "hybrid" plea agreement, first
internally to the management team with a note stating that it "contains the 18/12 split that Jay and
Andy agreed to," and then to Lefkowitz. Regarding the prosecution of other indivi
included the following provision: "This agreement resolves the federal criminal I it
defendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out
conduct by those persons known to the [USAO] as of the date of this plea we
but not limited to the conspiracy to solicit minors to engage in prostitution.
(t1In her email to Leflcowitz, transmitting the plea agreement, Vill a rot :
Could you share the attached draft with your colleagu It is in
keeping with what Andy communicated tom e operative
"deal." The U.S. Attorney hasn't had a ch w all of the
language, but he agrees with it in principl
[The West Palm Beach manage
.. . One of my suggestions i
together in the same room i
[Belohlavek], so we
signed document.
Villafafia also email
attorneys to work on the pl
approval. Acosta replied, "1
if that's ok." Acosta
important for him "to n
September, [to,
your trial la
understa
believ
an a
both be available at 2:00.
(again) that we all sit down
arty[Krischer] and/or Lanna
the still existing issues and get a
als, she
of the
ny • inal
inc uding
reedy, telling him she planned to meet with Epstein's
nt, and asking if Acosta would be available to provide final
ink I should be part of negotiations. I'd rather leave it to you
PR that "absent truly exceptional circumstances," he believed it was
g involved" in negotiations, and added, "You can meet, like I did in
e position of the office, [and] back your AUSA, but ultimately, I think
s discretion to do their job." Villafafia told OPR, however, that she did not
ta be giving her discretion to conduct the negotiations as she saw fit; rather, she
did not want to engage in face-to-face negotiations because "he wanted to have
of having sort of an arm's length from the deal.""9 Villafafia replied to Acosta's
119 As noted tluoughout the Report, Villafana's interpretation of her supervisors' motivations for their actions
often differed from the supervisors' explaretions for their actions. Because it involved subjective interpretations of
individuals' motivations, OPR does not reach conclusions regarding the subjects' differing views but includes them
as an indication of the communication issues that hindered the prosecution team. See Chapter Two, Part Three,
Section V.E.
74
CAlAronberg-000542
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736180
message, "That is fine. [The West Palm Beach manager] and I will nail everything down, we just
want to get a final blessing!"
Negotiations continued throughout the day on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, with
Villafaha and Lefkowitz exchanging emails regarding the factual proffer for a plea and the
scheduling of a meeting to finalize the plea agreement's terms. During that exchange, Villafaha
made clear to Lefkowitz that the time for negotiating was reaching an end:
I hate to have to be firm about this, but we need to wrap this up by
Monday. I will not miss my [September 25 charging] date when this
has dragged on for several weeks already and then, if things fall
apart, be left in a less advantageous position than before
negotiations. I have had an 82-page pros memo and 53
indictment sitting on the shelf since May to engage in
negotiations. There has to be an ending date, and
Monday.
Early that afternoon, Lourie—who was participating i e k's negotiations from his
new post at the Department in Washington, D.C.—asked furnish him with the last
draft of the plea agreement she had sent to defense coun rovided him with the "18/12
split" draft she had sent to Lefkowitz the prior aftern viewing that draft, Lourie told
Villafaha it was a "[g]ood job" but he question rovisions, including whether the
USAO's agreement to suspend the investigation n d a legal process in abeyance should be
in the plea agreement. Villafaha told Lourie t added that paragraph at the "insistence"
of the defense, and opined, "1 don't think us Villafaha explained to OPR that she held
this view because "Alex and people ab me already made the decision that if the case was
resolved we weren't going to get the uipment."
At 3:44 p.m. that afte witz entailed a "redline" version of the federal plea
agreement showing his new visi nd noted that he was "also working on a deferred [sic]
prosecution agreement becau tt m y well be that we cannot reach agreement here." The defense
redline version required Epstein plead guilty to a federal information charging two misdemeanor
counts of attempt to zonally harass a person to prevent testimony, the pending state
indictment char g so citgion of prostitution, and a state information charging one count of
coercing ape to bec me a prostitute, in violation of Florida Statute § 796.04 (without regard
to age). N ' er he proposed state offenses required sexual offender registration. Epstein
would se a 8- onth sentence and a concurrent 60 months on probation on the state charges.
The redli ver ion again deleted the provisions relating to damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and
replace_d_Y the provision requiring creation of a trust administered by the state court. It
retai anguage proposed by Villafaha, providing that the plea agreement "resolves the federal
crimin liability of the defendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida
growing out of any criminal conduct by those persons known to the [USAO) as of the date of this
plea agreement," but also re-inserted the provision promising not to prosecute Epstein's assistants
and the statement prohibiting the USAO from requesting, initiating, or encouraging immigration
proceedings. It also included a provision stating the government's agreement to forgo a
presentence investigation and a promise by the government to suspend the investigation and
withdraw all pending legal process.
75
CA/Aronberg-000543
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736181
• •
G. Villafaiia and Lourie Recommend Ending Negotiations, but Acosta Urges
That They "Try to Work It Out"
In the late afternoon of Wednesday, September 19, 2007, Villafaila expressed her
increasing frustration to her supervisors. She emailed the defense redline version of the plea
agreement to Lourie and the incoming West Palm Beach manager, identifying all of the provisions
she had "specifically discussed with [the defense team] and rejected, that they have re-inserted into
the agreement." (Emphasis in original). Villafana opined, "This is NOT good faith negotiations."
Lourie responded that he would "reach out to Alex to discuss."
Lourie immediately emailed Acosta the following:
I look.' the latest draft from Jay [Lefkowitz] and I mustfigree
with . Based on my own conversations with him, his draft is
out of left field. He claims to orally agree to our terms- and then'
sends us a document that is the opposite. I suggest weitimply tell
him that his counter offer is rejected and that w ten move
forward with our case.
Acosta replied:
Why don't we just call him. Tell hi
1. You agree, and then ch
N
2. That's not acceptable, is in bad faith. Stop it or we'll
indict.
3. Try to wo
It seems that
has to be pain
e, and it[']s worth trying to overcome what
. annoying negotiating tactics.
Acosta explained to Of he recognized,
is negotiation was a pain, but if it was the right position, the fact
ou've got annoying counsel on the other side doesn't it make
l ess of a right position. You tell them stop being annoying, you
to work it out, and if not, then you indict.
In response to Acosta's instruction, Lourie responded, "Ok will do." He also forwarded to
Acostarthe latest version of the USAO draft "hybrid" plea agreement that Villafaiia had sent to
Lefkowitz the previous day, which Lourie had requested and obtained from Villafafia earlier that
afternoon.
Meanwhile, Villafaiia sent to Lourie and his successor West Palm Beach manager a draft
message she proposed to send to Lefkowitz with her objections to the defense revisions,
explaining, "I know that you keep saying he is going to plead, and he will plead if we cave on
76
CA/Aronberg-000544
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736182
• •
everything, but I really do not think that Mr. Epstein is going to engage in serious negotiations
until he sees the Indictment and shows up in mag [federal magistrate judge] court." She suggested
charging Epstein on a federal conspiracy charge, and if he refused to plead to that offense,
superseding with additional charges and going to trial. She complained that after seven weeks of
negotiations, "we are just spinning our wheels." Her proposed email to Lefkowitz detailed all of
the objectionable provisions in his draft, and concluded, "If you or your client insists on these,
there can be no plea agreement."
H. Mona Edits the Federal Plea Agreement, and Villafana Sends a Fina4Version
to the Defense
The next day, Thursday, September 20, 2007, Villafafia emailed Assist te Attorney
Belohlavek and informed her:
Our deadline is Monday evening for a signed agr
arraignment in the federal system. At this time, thin ook
promising anyway, but I will keep you posted. In their raft,
they changed what they agreed to plead to state from
solicitation of minors for prostitution (a
forcing adults into prostitution (a non-re,
not budge on this issue, so it is lookin
mutually acceptable agreement. If t
Acosta sent Lourie "[s]ime thoughts"
federal plea agreement he had received fro
very straightforward" and "we are n
defense.120 Noting that the draft was
typically sign plea agreements an
only go forward if the trial team
to Villafafia with a transmi
Please try to incorporate his
final to Jay." Lourie Iso no
to go back to the initi
sent the revised lea
defense want
him on Se
offense) to
se). We will
t we will reach a
will let you know.
SAO version of the proposed "hybrid"
evening before, commenting that "it seems
g our standard charging language" for the
or his signature, Acosta told Lourie that he did not
d not be the first," adding that the USAO "should
d signs this agreement."12I Lowrie forwarded the email
imply reading, "I think Alex's changes are all good ones.
lions, change the signature block to your name and send as
Acosta and Villafafta that he believed the defense would want
f a state plea with a non-prosecution agreement. When Villafafia
ent to Lefkowitz later that afternoon, she advised him that if the
w the original offer of a state plea only, the draft NPA she had sent to
, 2007, would control.
1" The USAO had standard federal plea agreement language, from which this "hybrid" plea agreement had
substantially diverged.
121 The standard procedure was for documents such as plea agreements to be signed by an AUSA under the
name of the U.S. Ationcy. In his OPR interview, Acosta further explained that wanted to give "the trial leant" an
opportunity to voice any objections because "if it's something they don't feel comfortable with we . . . shouldn't go
forward with ii."
77
CA/Aronberg-000545
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736183
• •
I. The Defense Rejects the Federal Plea Agreement, Returns to the NPA
"State-Only" Resolution, and Begins Opposing the Sexual Offender
Registration Requirement
After having spent days negotiating the federal charges to be included in a plea agreement,
by the afternoon of September 20, 2007, the defense rejected the federal plea option, and the parties
resumed negotiations over the details of an NPA calling for Epstein to plead to only state charges.
Through multiple emails and attempts (some successful) to speak directly with Acosta and other
supervisors, defense attorneys vigorously fought the USAO's insistence that Epstein plead to a
state charge requiring sexual offender registration.
After receiving the federal plea agreement, Lefkowitz spoke with Villafanaflhe rted
to Acosta and Laurie that Lefkowitz told her the defense was "back to doing the state-charges-
only agreement" and wanted until the middle of the following week to wo out the details, but
that she had told defense counsel that "we need a signed agreement b o ow [Friday] or we
are [filing charges] on Tuesday."
Lefkowitz emailed Villafafta about the draft NPA tha
that it called for a 20-month jail sentence followed by 10 mo
18 months in jail and 12 under community control, and
on the § 2255 procedure. Villafafta responded:
The 18 and 12 has already been our office, so that is
not a problem. On the issue a .C. §1 2255, we seem to
be miles apart. Your most t veeon not only had me binding
the girls to a trust fund by the state court, but also
promising that they their [§] 2255 rights.
I reviewed the e- I nt you on Sunday with the comments
on some of y r o he ges. In the context of a non-prosecution
agreement, th ffi may be more willing to be specific about not
pursuin charg inst others. However, as I stated on Sunday,
the O i not and will not bind Immigration.
so, yo timetable will need to move up significantly. As [State
mey] Barry [Krischer] said in our meeting last week, his office
t together a plea agreement, [and an] information, and get you
before the (state] judge on a change of plea within a day.
dart alerted Krischer that evening that negotiations were "not going very well" and
that dbfiense counsel "changed their minds again, and they only want to plead to state charges, not
concurrent state and federal." She added, "If we cannot reach .. . an agreement, then I need to
[charge] the case on Tuesday [September 25] and I will not budge from that date."
In response to Villafana's report of her conversation with Lefkowitz about the defense
preference for a "state-charges-only agreement," Lourie alerted her that, "He wants to get out of
[sexual offender] registration which we should not agree to." Lourie emailed Acosta:
78
sent to him, pointing out
munity control, rather than
USAO had "any flexibility"
CA/Aronberg-000546
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736184
• •
I think Jay [Leflcowitz] will try to talk you out of a registrable
offense. Regardless of the merits of his argument, in order to get us
down in time they made us an offer that included pleading to an
offense against a minor (encouraging a minor into prostitution) and
touted that we should be happy because it was registrable. For that
reason alone, I don't think we should consider allowing them to
come down from their own offer, either on this issue or on time of
incarceration.
Lefkowitz attempted to reach Acosta that night, but Acosta directed Villafaha in the
call, and told Lourie that he did not want to open "a backchannel" with defense rie
instructed Villafaha, "U can tell [J]ay that [A]lex will not agree to a nonregistra ense."
On the morning of Friday, September 21, 2007, Villafaha email
that "it looks like we will be [filing charges against] Mr. Epstein on T
charging package was being reviewed by the West Palm Beach manag
the Miami office needed to review it. Villafaha also alerted L.. rie
morning to Leflcowitz, who "was waffling" about Epstein pl
sexual offender registration, and she noted that she would
"to make sure the defense doesn't try to do an end run."
That same morning, Epstein attorney San
for several weeks, emailed Sloman, advising, "
one issue outstanding and [1] do not believe
would assist in his determination on this p
as soon as today." From his out-of-to n vacat A
replied, "Enjo[y] vacation. Workin i
email to Lourie and asked, "Do
'has not been in any
y
sz
J. The USA() A'
n onning him
rting that the
asking if anyone in
he had spoken that
state charge that required
Krischer and Belohlavelc
not been involved in negotiations
finalize the plea deal and there is only
as read all the defense submissions that
. [ pon resolution, we will be prepared to sign
, Sloman forwarded the email to Acosta, who
th [Kane on this." Sloman also forwarded
ou know what she's talking about?" Lourie responded tat
otiations. Don't even engage with yet another M"
of to Criminally Charge "Potential Co-Conspirators"
Leflcowitz, in t time, sent Villafaila a revised draft NPA that proposed an 18-month
sentence in the nty ail, followed by 12 months of community control, and restored the
provision for rust fu d for disbursement to an agreed-upon list of individuals "who seek
reimburse b t ing suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255." This defense draft retained the
provisio si g not to criminally charge Epstein's four female assistants and unnamed
empl oft specific Epstein-owned corporate entity, but also extended the provision to "any
po onspirators" for any criminal charge arising from the ongoing federal investigation.
Thi anguage had evolved from similar language that Villafaha had included in the USAO's
earlier roposed draft federal plea agreement. In Lefkowitz also again included the sentence
In The language in the USAO's draft federal plea agreement stated, "This agreement resolves the federal
criminal liability of the defendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any
criminal conduct by those persons known to the [USAO1...."
79
CA/Aronberg-000547
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736185
precluding the government from requesting, initiating, or recommending immigration proceedings
against the two assistants who were foreign nationals.
At this point, Lefkowitz again sought to speak to Acosta, who replied by email: "I am
happy to talk. My caveat is that in the middle of negotiations, u try to avoid() undermining my
staff by allowing InterlocutorOy' appeals so to speak so I'd want [M]arie on the can] I'll have
her set something up."
Villafana sent to Lefkowitz her own revised NPA, telling him it was her "a mpt at
combining our thoughts," but it had not "been approved by the office yet." She insert I nation
of minors to engage in prostitution, a registrable offense, as the charge to which s Id
plead guilty; proposed a joint recommendation for a 30-month sentence, divid onths
in the county jail and 12 months of community control; and amended the vision. 23
Villafafia's revision retained the provision suspending the investigation g all legal
process in abeyance, and she incorporated the non-prosecution provisiqn wh tly altering it
to apply to "any potential co-conspirator of Epstein, including" the flour named assistants, and
deleting mention of the corporate entity employees. Finally 'llafaiia deleted mention of
immigration proceedings, but advised in her transmittal email have not and don't plan to
ask immigration" proceedings to be initiated.124
Later that day, Villafafia alerted Lourie (who h Florida from Washington, D.C.
early that afternoon) and the new West Palm Beach a pying her first-line supervisor and
co-counsel) that she had included language a ens counsel had requested "regarding
promises not to prosecute other people," and n , "I don't think it hurts us." There is no
documentation that Lourie, the West Palm ma ger, or anyone else expressed disagreement
with Villafafia's assessment. Rather, minutes, Villafatut re-sent her email, adding
that defense counsel was persisting in an immigration waiver in the agreement, to which
Lourie responded, "No way. We sort of thing in a plea agreement." Villafafia replied
to Lourie, indicating she wo t along to defense counsel and adding, "Any other
thoughts?" When Lourie gav no fu i response, Villafafia informed defense counsel that Lourie
had rejected the proposed im •n language.
OPR question bjects about the USAO's agreement not to prosecute "any potential
co-conspirators." Loun di not recall why the USAO agreed to it, but he speculated that he left
that provision' he NP ecause he believed at the time that it benefited the government in some
way. In c Lourie conjectured that the promise not to prosecute "any potential
co-consp otected victims who had recruited others and thus potentially were
n Epstein's scheme. Lourie also told OPR, "I bet the answer was that we weren't
arge" Epstein's accomplices, because Acosta "didn't really want to charge Epstein" in
illafatia noted that she had consulted with a USAO employee who was a "former emporate counsel from a
hospital" about the a 2255 language, and thought that the revised language "addresses the content about having an
unlimited number ofclaimed victims, without me trying to bind girls who I do not represent."
124 Villafana gave OPR an explanation similar to that given by the case agents—that an ICE Special Agent had
been involved in the early stages of the federal investigation of Epstein, and Villafaila believed the agent knew two of
Epstein's female assistants were foreign nationals and would have acted appropriately on that information. Villafaila
also said that the USAO generally did not get involved in immigration issues.
80
CA/Aronberg-000548
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736186
• •
federal court. Sloman similarly said that he had the impression that the non-prosecution provision
was meant to protect named co-conspirators who were also victims, "in a sense," of Epstein's
conduct. Although later press coverage of the Epstein case focused on Epstein's connection to
prominent figures and suggested that the non-prosecution provision protected these individuals,
Sloman told OPR that it never occurred to him that the reference to potential co-conspirators was
directed toward any of the high-profile individuals who were at the time or subsequently linked
with Epstein.I25 Acosta did not recall the provision or any discussions about it. He speculated
that if he read the non-prosecution provision, he likely assumed that Villafaha and Lourie had
"thought this through" and "addressed it for a reason." The West Palm Beach manager ho had
only limited involvement at this stage, told OPR that the provision was "highly unu and he
had "no clue" why the USAO agreed to it.
Villafafia told OPR that, apart from the women named in the NPA,
not developed evidence of "any other potential co-conspirators. So
prosecuting anybody else, so why not include it? . I just didn't thi
that it would cover." She conceded, however, that she "did not catch
as broadly as people have since read it."
gation had
wouldn't be
was anybody
hat it could be read
K. The USAO Rejects Defense Efforts t to the Sexual Offender
Registration Requirement
On the afternoon of Friday, September
Villafafia that Epstein's counsel had contacted
terms" of the NPA—except for sexual offe,
counsel had proposed that registration be d
law enforcement felt, at any point du
Krischer noted that he had "reached
from him. Villafaha responded,"
knowledge, Acosta called Kri
Later that afternoon,
time" Epstein would earn in
include a provision in
number of days
authorities to
Epstein w
not prey
facility
tate Attorney Krischer informed
was ready to agree "to all the
non. According to Krischer, defense
that Epstein register only if state or federal
ce of the sentence, that he needed to do so.
to about this proposal but had not heard back
is calling you now." Villafafia told OPR that, to her
m that registration was not a negotiable term."
a emailed Krischer for information about the amount of "gain
prison. Villafafia explained in her email that she wanted to
specifying that Epstein "will actually be in jail at least a certain
re he doesn't try to 'convince' someone with the Florida prison
early." Krischer responded that under the proposal as it then stood,
5 months. He also told Villafaha that a plea to a registrable offense would
tom serving his time "at the stockade"—the local minimum security detention
its )Sloman also pointed out that the NM was not a "global resolution" and other co-conspirators could have
been prosecuted "by any other NIS. Attomey'sl office in the country."
116 Krischer told OPR that he did not recall meeting or having interactions with Acosta regarding the Epstein
case or any other matter.
177 The State Attorney concluded his email: "Glad we could get this worked out for reasons I won't put in
writing. After this is resolved I would bye to buy you a cup at Starbucks and have a conversation." Villafafta
responded, "Sounds great?' When asked about this exchange during her OPR interview, Villafafta said: "Everybody
81
CNAronberg-000549
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736187
• •
At some point that day, Acosta spoke with Lefkowitz by phone regarding the need for
Epstein to plead to a registrable offense. Throughout the weekend, with Villafaila's Monday
deadline looming, defense coup el hard to eliminate the sexual offender requirement. On
Saturday, September 22, 2007, sent a series of emails to Lourie. In the first, she provided
details from a press report about a Florida public official who the previous day had pled guilty to
child sex abuse charges and was sentenced to a term of probation. She noted that she "spoke to
[M]att [Menchel]" and asked Lourie to call her. Two hours later she sent Lourie a second, lengthy
email, strongly objecting to the registration requirement, and outlining "all arguments against
registration [as a sexual offender] in this case." In this email, claimed that they ad been
a "miscommunication" during the September 12, 2007 meeting, and that "we only to the
solicitation with minors because we believed and [Krischer] and [Belohlavek] was
NOT registrable." complained that lifetime sexual offender registr was a "life
sentence" that was "uncalled for," "does not make sense," and was "ina to impose
"simply [because] the FBI wants it, in return for all there [sic] efforts" ted numerous
reasons why Epstein should not have to register, including his lack of or history of
sexual offenses; the lack of any danger of recidivism; the ease with w could be "tracked"
without registering; and that it would be "virtual' inis sible to
registration requirements. A few minutes later, sent
y th four separate state
's phone number to Lourie
"in case you want to speak to him directly."
In another email sent less than two hours late c Id Lourie she was writing again
because "you are a very fair person. This resoluti io he case is not reasonable. [I]t is a
result of a misunderstanding at a meeting." S to that Epstein's attorneys had "consistently
emphasized their goal of 18 months in a and "[e]veryone knew that a registerable
offense precluded" a camp designation. a ded, "Therefore it would have been wholly
inconsistent with that primary goal of tein' safety to lightly concede to registration at that
meeting." concluded, "[1 ife sentence on him is not something anyone will
eventually be proud of. Please d help me get a fair result."
Lourie responded to
conversation. By email late
emails, but he did reach out to Acosta for a phone
at 10:26 p.m., Lefkowitz asked Lourie to phone him.
The next day, tz emailed Acosta—with copies to Sloman, Lourie, and Villafafia—
to "follow up o r co ersation Friday," asking Acosta again to reconsider the requirement that
Epstein plea regtst le offense. Lefkowitz wrote that there had been a "misunderstanding"
at the Sep er 2007 meeting:
efore the meeting, Mr. Krischer and Ms. Belohlavek, a sex
prosecutor for 13 years, told us that solicitation of a minor . . . is not
a registerable offense. However, as it turned out, [it] is a registerable
offense and our discussion at the meeting was based on a mistaken
assumption. We suggest that Mr. Epstein enter two pleas—one to
the Indictment and a second to a non-registerable charge.
his offered to buy me a cup of coffee. I have had coffee with no one." Krischer told OPR that the "reasons" to which
he referred related to the pressure he had been getting from Chief Reiter about the Epstein case.
82
CA/Aronberg-000550
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736188
Lefkowitz set forth arguments similar to those MIN had presented to Lourie, as to why
registration "based on the facts alleged in this case . . . simply does not make sense." In the event
that Acosta did not agree to their proposed charges, Lefkowitz offered as an alternative"to stipulate
that the state offense" would "constitute a prior sexual offense for purposes of enhanced recidivist
sentencing" should Epstein ever again commit a federal sex offense against minors. As Lefkowitz
further argued, "By accepting this option, you would be substituting the certainty of recidivist
sentencing for the humiliation of registration." Emails reflect that, early that afternoon, Acosta,
Lourie, and Villafafia discussed the matter in a conference call.
Lefkowitz also sent a revised version of the NPA to Villafafia that omitted ide 'fi tion of
the charge to which Epstein would plead guilty. Later that day, Lefkowitz email
I got a call from [Marie who said you had rejected our pro
Does that mean you are not even prepared to have [Epstein
now to plead to the registerable offense near the end of h'
sentence and then be sentenced to 12 month(s) comm trol
for that charge? I thought that was exactly wh sed
[F]riday (although you wanted, but were not abl 't with some
kind of federal charge).
But that still gives you a registerable s o 30 months total,
and 18 in jail.
How can that not satisfy you
not unduly endangered in jaj
Acosta responded, "I do not mean t
AUSAs assigned to the case." A
they had "discretion to proc
and she emailed Acosta to th
4kensuring that [Einstein is
fftculT, but our negotiations must take place with the
that he had spoken with Lourie and Villafafia, and
eve just and appropriate." Acosta copied Villafafia,
r the support."
L. The Defense Confidentiality Clause
Throughout th day evening, Lefkowitz had numerous email exchanges with
Villafafia, and parent conference call with Lourie (who was returning to Washington, D.C.)
and Villafafi r that evening, Lefkowitz sent Villafafia a new version of the NPA that, for the
first tim confidentiality term:
t is the intention of the parties to this Agreement that it not be
disseminated or disclosed except pursuant to court order. In the
event the Govemment must disclose this Agreement in response to
a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the
Government agrees to provide Epstein notice before the disclosure
of this Agreement.
After making additional revisions, Villafaha sent this NPA to Acosta and Lourie as the
"final" version, asking Acosta to let her know what he thought of it. Among her revisions, she
changed the confidentiality provision to the following:
83
CA/Aronberg-000551
I II ED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736189
• •
The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made pan of
any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of
Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding
the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein
before making that disclosure. in
VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007: ACOSTA MAKES FINAL EDITS, AND THE NPA IS
SIGNED
The contemporaneous email s show that Villafaha continued to update Acosta
negotiated the final language and that Acosta reviewed and edited the NPA. Shortl
on Monday, September 24, 2007, Acosta sent Villafaha "[s]mall edits" to the "fi
sent to him. Among his changes was language modifying provisions that ap
State Attorney's Office or the state court to take specific actions, such
enter his guilty plea by a certain date. Acosta explained in his email,'
requiring the State Attorney to enter into a (joint sentencing] recom
State court to stick with our timeline" for entry of the guilty pl d
Acosta substituted language that required Epstein alone
recommendation to the state court, and required Epstein to
plea and be sentenced by the specified dates. Acosta also'
to Epstein's wish "to reach a global resolution of his s
who had returned to the Department in Washi
Lefkowitz and sent additional comments on the
a new revision, incorporating edits from Aco
On the afternoon of September
the NPA to Acosta, Sloman, Louri
signed agreement. After Lefko •
signed by Epstein, she email
and emailed the signed agree tent. t
parties
er ight
PA s e had
equire the
hat Epstein
fortable with
n" or "requiring a
cing. Accordingly,
e a binding sentencing
t efforts" to enter his guilty
Ilafatla to restore a reference
eral criminal liabilities." Lourie,
had a phone conversation with
ft to Acosta and Villafaha. Villafafta sent
(de, to Lefkowitz later that morning.
s
illafaila circulated the new "final" version of
supervisors, and asked Lefkowitz to send her the
'catty transmitted to Villafaha a copy of the NPA
ate supervisor and her co-counsel: "They have scanned
done."
In his transmi I anal , fkowitz asked Villafaha to "[p]lease do whatever you can to
keep this from becomi *c." Villafafta responded:
ave fo arded your message only to Alex, Andy, and [the West
each manager]. I don't anticipate it going any further than
at. When I receive the originals, I will sign and return one copy
you. The other will be placed in the case file, which will be kept
confidential since it also contains identifying information about the
girls.
When we reach an agreement about the attorney representative for
the girls, we can discuss what I can tell him and the girls about the
13 In conunenting on OPR's draft report. Lourie observed that because the NPA contained names of uncharged
coconspirators and other protected information, the USA() would have a duly to redact the information before
disclosing the N .
84
CA/Aronberg-000552
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERIC. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
th
EFTA02736190
• •
agreement. I know that Andy promised Chief Reiter an update when
a resolution was achieved. . . . [The West Palm Beach manager] is
calling, but [he] knows not to tell Chief Reiter about the money
issue, just about what crimes Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to and
the amount of time that has been agreed to. [He] also is telling Chief
Reiter not to disclose the outcome to anyone.
OPR questioned Villafafta about this email. She explained that she generally kept
confidential the terms of the resolution of any case. She understood that "the way that the pstein]
case was resolved" needed to remain confidential, but the victims could be informed t what
happened because by the NPA's terms, they needed to know what the agreement
Villafatia emailed the West Palm Beach manager, asking him to tel r'ef Reiter
"the good news" but "leave out the part about damages," and explained the ted to meet
with the victims herself to explain how the damages provision would fatla also told
him that Lourie had asked that Reiter share information about the A o ly with the PBPD
Detective who had led the state investigation of Epstein Villaf fo to Acosta, Lourie,
and the West Palm Beach manager Lefkowitz's email asking SAO try to keep the NPA
from becoming public. Acosta responded that the agreeme finds us not to make public
except as required by law under [the Freedom of Informatil nd asked, "[W]hat more does
he want?" Villaftula replied, "My guess is that if we Ise (like the police chief or FBI
or the girls), that we ask them not to disclose." S t Acosta emailed Lourie, Villafai%a,
and the West Palm Beach manager to set up a "who we tell and how much," adding,
"Nice job with a difficult negotiation."
The final NPA, as signed by E ttomeys Lefcourt and M, and Villafaila,
contained the following pertinent pro
Charges: Epstein guilty to the pending Palm Beach County indictment,
plus a cou of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, a
regis le o ense.
Sentence: ies would make a joint, binding recommendation for a 30-month
e ce divided as follows: consecutive terms of 12 months and 6 months
in e county jail, without opportunity for withholding adjudication or
sentencing and without community control or probation, followed by
12 months of community control, consecutive.110
As long as the identified victims proceeded exclusively under 18 U.S.C.
§ 2255, Epstein would not contest federal court jurisdiction or the victims'
status as victims. The USAO would provide to Epstein a list of individuals
129 The West Palm Beach manager told OPR that he called Chief Reiter, who was "fine" with the outcome.
130 Withholding adjudication or sentencing referred to a special sentence in which the judge orders probation
but does not formally convict the defendant of a criminal offense. See Fla. Stat. § 948.01 (2007).
85
CA/Aronberg-000553
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736191
• •
Timing:
Immunity:
Other:
it had identified as victims.131 The USAO, with the good faith approval of
Epstein's counsel, would select an attorney representative for the victims,
whom Epstein would pay.
Epstein would make his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced
by October 26, 2007. The USAO had no objection to Epstein self-reporting
to begin serving his sentence by January 4, 2008.
The USAO would not initiate criminal charges against "any potential
co-conspirator of Epstein," including four named personal assi an
Epstein was obligated to undertake discussions with the Attorney's
Office to ensure compliance with this agreement.
Epstein waived his right to appeal.
Epstein agreed that he would not be afforded a benefits with respect to
gain time or other rights, opportunities, benefits not available to any
other inmate.
The federal investigation would s and all pending legal process
held in abeyance unless a u 'I violated any term of the
agreement. Evidence "req y direct y related to" the pending legal
process, "including ce er equipment," would be kept inviolate
until all the NPA te satisfied.
Breach: The USAO wo requWed to notify Epstein of any alleged breach of the
agreement h .ays of the expiration of the term of home
confinem Id be required to initiate prosecution within 60 days
therea
Disclosure: The pa anticipate[d]" that the agreement would not be made part of
ublic record, and if the USAO received a Freedom of Information Act
or compulsory process commanding disclosure of the agreement, it
Id provide notice to Epstein before making any disclosure.132
That event Lefkowitz emailed Lourie to express concern about the notification he
underst we Id e given to Chief Reiter, stating, "I am very concerned about leaks unduly
pretu rey [Epstein] in the media." " 3 He added, "I have enjoyed working with you on
The USAO had not informed the defense of the victims' identities at this point. The parties anticipated that
the USA would send Epstein's attorneys a list of victims when Epstein fulfilled his obligation under the NPA to
enter his state guilty pleas.
132 The final NPA is attached as Exhibit 3 to this Report.
On October 3, 2007: the Miami FBI media officer notified the USAO that the New York Post had reported
that federal authorities were not going to pursue federal charges against Epstein. According to the Post, Epstein would
plead guilty to soliciting underage prostitutes. "in a deal that will send him to prison for about 18 months," followed
by "a shorter period of house confinement," and, according to "sources," federal authorities had "agreed to drop their
86
CA/Aronberg-000554
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736192
this matter." Lourie responded with an assurance that the Reiter notification was only "so he does
not find out about it in the paper," and he concluded: "I enjoyed it as well. Mr. Epstein was
fortunate to have such excellent representation."
VIII. POST-NPA NEGOTIATIONS
Almost immediately after the NPA was signed, conflicts arose about its terms, and the
difficult negotiation process began anew. The USAO quickly realized that there were numerous
issues concerning the monetary damages provision that were not resolved in the NP and the
parties differed in their interpretations of the § 2255 provision, in particular the role d uties of
the attorney representative for the victims. As negotiations regarding the dam s sion
continued, the defense was able to delay having Epstein enter his guilty plea in urt.
A. September — October 2007: Sloman's Concerns ab on of an
Attorney Representative Lead to a Proposed NPA A
The first controversy centered on the appointment of an alto presentative for the
victims. Initially, Villafaila reached out to a private attorney w one of several suggested to
her for that role. Villafaiia notified Lefkowitz that she was ing the attorney to serve as
the victims' representative and suggested a phone con n iscuss what information the
USAO could disclose to the attorney about the case. Id Lefkowitz that she had never
met the attorney, but he had been recommended by d in our appellate section" and by
one of the district judges in Miami.174 Over the des s, Villafaiia exchanged messages with
the attorney about the possibility of his servin a mey representative. She also exchanged
emails with Lefkowitz, passing along pr t qu ions raised by the attorney.
By this time, Lourie had ful Qj sttio ed to his detail at the Department's Criminal
Division. Sloman, who had been on during the week the NPA was finalized, returned to
the office, reviewed the final , and immediately expressed his disapproval of the
provision authorizing the U to ect an attorney representative for the victims, which he
believed might raise the ap ran of a conflict of interest. Instead, he proposed that a special
make the selection. Alt gh evidently frustrated b Sloman's belated proposal, Villafana
conveyed to Leflcowi ggestion that a special be appointed to select the attorney
representative, her th h ving the USAO make the se ection.135 She provided Lefkowitz with
probe into ral criminal violations in exchange for the guilty plea to the new state charge, with the
understa will do prison time." Dan Mangan. "'Unhappy Ending' Plea Deal—Moneyman to Get Jail For
Teen Sex es," New York Poo, Oct. I, 2007. ADC News later reported that federal charges "could carry more
n time. Now, Epstein's high-powered lawyers, including Kenneth Stan, . . . may try to get him out
of re eying as a sex offender . . . ." Scott Michels, "Money Munger Said to Plan to Plead Guilty to Prostitution
Charges. Jeffrey Epstein may serve about IS months in prison for soliciting prostitutes," ABC News, Oct. II, 2007.
04 The "good friend" was an AUSA whom Villafafta was dating. The defense subsequently raised this as a
misconduct issue, alleging that Villafafti was "closely associated" with the individual nominated for the victims'
representative position.
13$ In a separate email to the proposed attorney representative, Villafafta (=mimed. "toy course they tell me
this now."
87
CA/Aronberg-000555
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736193
• •
a proposal re the special responsibilities, along with a draft letter to send to the
special explaining the procedure for selecting an attorney representative.
Lefkowitz objected to this proposal in a letter to Villafaha, pointing out that the NPA did
not provide for the app in of a special =. More importantly, Leflcowitz used the
discussion of the special as an opening to press for other alterations to the language of the
NPA or, at least, to its interpretation. Focusing on the attorney representative, Lefkowitz argued
that the attorney's role should be viewed as limited to negotiating settlements and that the attorney
was precluded front filing lawsuits on behalf of victims who could not reach a n gotiated
settlement with Epstein. Lefkowitz proposed:
[T]he selected attorney should evaluate the claims of each identify
individual, negotiate a total fund amount with Mr. Epstein
distribute the monies based on the strength of each case. Fo
identified individuals who elect not to settle with Mr. E
may proceed on their own, but by doing so, they would t be ing
under § 2255 as contemplated by [the NPA] and t o y not
continue to be represented by the selected atto
Lefkowitz also objected to Villafaha's draft letter to t s a aster, asserting that it was
essential for the defense to participate in crafting a " table communication" to the
victims. Going further, Lefkowitz claimed that etween the USAO and the victims
about the § 2255 provision would violate the a t' confidentiality provision. Lefkowitz
admonished the government not to contact t to inform them of the resolution of the
case, including [the) appointment of the se an ey and the settlement process."
Villafaha forwarded Letico I er to Sloman, complaining that the defense
interpretation of the § 2255 proce v e r language of the NPA and asking, "Can I
please just indict him [Epstein] r, emailed Sloman, and then sent a follow-up
letter, asking that Sloman "h p reso the issue regarding the attorney representative's role, and
arguing that Epstein had nev S by signing the NPA to promise to pay fees for the victims'
civil lawsuits in the event a set ent could not be reached. When Villafafta explained to Sloman
her views on ents, Sloman responded, "I suggest that you communicate your
proposal back [Sant The more 'voices' they hear the more wedges they try to drive
between us." lafaha noting that "[t]here are so many of them over there, I am afraid we
are gettin
sent a letter regarding the roles of the special and attorney
The next day, October 10, 2007, Lefkowitz sent a six-page letter to Acosta, as a
to our conversation yesterday," expressing "serious disagreements" with Villafaha's
view o he process for victims to claim § 2255 damages under the NPA. Lefkowitz reiterated the
defense position that the attorney representative's role was meant to be limited to negotiating
settlements for the victims, rather than pursuing litigation. Lefkowitz claimed that a requirement
136 Villafada also alerted Sloman that a newspaper was reporting that defense counsel was writing a letter to
Acosta asking for reconsideration of the requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender. Villafaita commented,
"It appears they don't understand that a signed contract is binding."
88
CA/Aronberg-000556
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736194
• •
that Epstein pay the victims' legal fees incurred from contested litigation would "trigger profound
ethical problems," in that the attorney representative would have an incentive to reject settlement
offers in order to incur more fees. In addition, Leflcowitz rejected Villafafta's view that Epstein
had waived the right to challenge § 2255 liability as to victims who did not want to settle their
claims, and contended that any such victims "will have to prove, among other things, that they are
victims under the enumerated statutes." Finally, Leflcowitz again argued that the USAO should
not discuss the settlement process with the victims who were to be identified as eligible for
settlement under § 2255:
Ms. Villafafta proposes that either she or federal agents will speak
with the [victims] regarding the settlement process. We do not thin
it is the government's place to be co-counsel to the [victims], n
should the FBI be their personal investigators. Neither f
agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the [victi
inform them of the resolution of the case, including ap
the attorney representative and the settlement process Not ly
would that violate the confidentiality of the ree but
Mr. Epstein also will have no control over wha unicated to
the [victims] at this most critical stage. W e is essential
that we participate in crafting a mutually • mmunication
to the [victims]. We further believe t mations between
your Office or your case agents and a vt ] might well violate
Rule 6(eX2XB) of the Federal Cnminal Procedure. The
powers of the federal grand j ot, even in appearance, be
utilized to advance the inter t f a y to a civil lawsuit.137
Leflcowitz concluded, "I look forwa 'ng these open issues with you during our 4:30 call
today."133
Villafafta was at that leave, and Sloman and Acosta exchanged emails about
crafting an addendum to the A address the method of appointing an attorney representative
and to articulate the resenta t e s duties. The next day, October 11, 2007, Sloman exchanged
emails with Lefkowi lte text of a proposed addendum.
B. tobec er £2, 2007: Acosta and Defense Attorney Letkowitz Meet for Breakfast
O o rag after his scheduled afternoon phone call with Leflcowitz, Acosta exchanged
email owitz, arranging to meet for breakfast the following day, on October 12, 2007, at
a Marti. in West Palm Beach. Contemporaneous records show that Acosta was previously
sc be in West Palm Beach for a press event on October 11 and to speak at the Palm
Beach •ounty Bench Bar conference the following midday, and that he stayed overnight at the
Marriott.
DJ Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(eX2)(B) relates to secrecy of federal grand Jury flatters.
Di OPR did not locate any entails indicating what happened on the call
89
CNAronberg-000557
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736195
• •
However, as with Villafafia's publicly released emails to Lefkowitz, this meeting between
Acosta and Lefkowitz drew criticism when the media learned of it during the CVRA litigation. It
was seen either as further evidence of the USAO's willingness to meet with Epstein's attorneys
while simultaneously ignoring the victims, or as a meeting at which Acosta made secret
agreements with the defense.
Two letters written later in 2007 refer to the breakfast meeting. In a December 2007 letter
to M, Acosta stated that he had "sera sponte proposed the Addendum to Mr. Lefkowitz at an
October meeting in Palm Beach . . . . in an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would li ly be a
litigious selection process." 139 In an October 23, 2007 letter from Lefkowitz to Aco I s than
two weeks after the breakfast meeting, Lefkowitz represented that during the meet
assured me that [the USAO] would not intervene with the
Attorney's Office regarding this matter; or contact an
identified individuals, potential witnesses, or pot
claimants and their respective counsel in this matter; and at n ther
[the USAO] nor the [FBI] would intervene regard' • th ence
Mr. Epstein receives pursuant to a plea with the long as the
sentence does not violate state law. 140
However, two days after receiving this letter,
Sloman, adding the term "inaccurate" to describe
not to intervene with the State Attorney's Offi ,
intervene regarding Epstein's sentence.101 Th re
sed a response letter drafted by
claims that Acosta had promised
ct Individual witnesses or claimants, or
nse stated, "1 S]uch a promise equates to
the imposition of a gag order. Our Office an 'II not agree to this."143
Acosta told OPR that he did not rents er the breakfast meeting, but he speculated that
the meeting may have been prompted'by defense complaints that Villafafia had recommended "her
boyfriend's partner" to serve a attorney representative.'" Acosta said that "the way this was
reported (in the press] was at I negotiated [the NPA] over breakfast," which was inaccurate
because the NPA had been ed weeks before the breakfast meeting.'" When asked about
139 ht fact, Simian vitz had been working on language for the Addendum before Acosta's breakfast
meeting with Lelko itz. It po iblc that Acosta was not aware of Slontan's efforts or had forgotten about them
when writing the mber 7 007 letter.
140 rs d further in the following section of this Report.
t find evidence establishing that the response was ever sent
hn n's initial draft response referred to a conversation the previous day in which Acosta had "clarified"
Lefko claims about what Acosta had purportedly said in the October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting.
143 As noted previously, the attorney whom Villafaila recoirunended was a friend of another AUSA nitwit
Villafaib was then dating, but had no professional relationship with either Villafaita or the other AUSA.
us. For example, the Miami herald's November 2018 investigative report stated that "on the morning of the
breakfast meeting, a deal was struck—an extraordinary plea agreement that would conceal the full extent of Epstein's
crimes and the number of people involved. . . . Tilt deal—called a non-prosecution agreement—essentially shut
down an ongoing FBI probe .. . ." Julie K. "Perversion of Justice: How a future Trump cabinet member gave
a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime," Miami erald, Nov. 28,2018. The NPA, however, was finalized and signed
90
CA/Aronberg -000558
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736196
• •
Lefkowitz's description of their breakfast meeting discussion, Acosta told OPR that there were
"several instances" in which Lefkowitz and other defense counsel mischaracterized something he
or an AUSA said, in a way that was misleading.
Emits show that, immediately after the breakfast, Acosta phoned Sloman, who then
emailed to Lefkowitz a revision to the Addendum language they had been negotiating and who
also later reported to Villaftula that Leflcowitz's "suggested revision has been rejected." Other
emails show that the parties continued to be at odds about the proposed language for the NPA
addendum for several days after the breakfast meeting.
C. Acosta Agrees to the Defense Request to Postpone Epstein's Guilty Plea; the
Parties Continue to Negotiate Issues concerning the Attorne epresentative
and Finally Reach Agreement on the NPA Addendum
A week after his breakfast meeting with Acosta, Lefkowitz—cit idling conflict—
sent Acosta an email seeking his agreement to postpone Epstein's en of hi guilty plea in state
court from October 26, 2007, the date agreed to in the NPA, to Novemb , 2007. In his email,
Lefkowitz reported that the State Attorney's Office had agreed ostponement, and he noted
that Acosta had said during the breakfast meeting that he " to dictate a schedule to the
state."145 Acosta solicited input from Sloman, who late a a ailed Lefkowitz and agreed
to the postponement.
With Lourie having departed from the 1.1AO, loman became more involved in
negotiating the NPA addendum than he had been in th*negotiations leading to the NPA, and he
quickly came up against the problem Villafana Lourie had faced: the defense attorneys
continued to negotiate provisions to wh' they bpd seemingly already agreed. Between October
12 and 19, 2007, in a series of em h ges and phone conversations, Acosta, Sloman,
Villafafta, and Lefkowitz continu on language for the NPA addendum addressing the
process for selection of the an ep entative and describing which of the representative's
activities Epstein would be r wired imburse. Although it appeared that progress was being
made towards reaching agr ent the terms of an addendum, on October 19, 2007, Lefkowitz
emailed Sloman ident 'ng"a of concern" with a proposal the USAO had made days before.
Sloman forwarded this o Acosta, noting that it "re-ploughs some of what we accomplished
this week," and r -sed " necessary" issues. Sloman reported to Acosta that a victim in New York
had filed a ci awsuit gainst Epstein, and Villafana was concerned that "this may be the real
reason for ' the . . . plea. She thinks that [Epstein] . . . want[s] to knock that lawsuit out
before t ea to deter others." Sloman also alerted Acosta that newspaper reports
indi had planted false stories in the press in an attempt to discredit the victims.
almost I ii e weeks before the breakfast meeting occurred. OPR discusses the breakfast meeting further in its analysis
at Chapter Two. Part Three, Section IV.E.2.
145 Assuming Acosta made the remark Letkowitz attributed to him, it was consistent with the position Acosta
had taken before the NPA was signed. As noted previously, during the NPA negotiations, Acosta had instructed
Villafaita to omit language requiring the State Attorney's Office to take action by a certain dale; because he was "not
comfortable with requiring the State" to comply with a specific deadline. During his interview, Acosta told OPR that
"we as federal prosecutors are not going to walk in and dictate to the state attorney."
91
CA/Aronberg-000559
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736197
• •
On October 22, 2007, Sloman responded to the issues Lefkowitz had raised, rejecting some
defense proposals but agreeing to modify certain language in the proposed addendum to "satisfy
your concern.TM6 Noting that the addendum and a revised letter to the special were
attached, Sloman ended by stating, "[T]his needs to be concluded. Alex and I believe that this is
as far as we can go. Therefore, please advile me whether we have a deal no later than COB
tomorrow . .. ."
Nonetheless, the next day, Lefkowitz sent Acosta a three-page letter reiterating the Epstein
team's disagreements with the USAO's interpretation of the NPA. Lefkowitz noted, ho er, that
Epstein had "every intention of honoring the terms of [the NPA] in good faith," and th h efense
letter was not intended to be "a rescission or withdrawal from the terms of the [NP witz
added:
I also want to thank you for the commitment you made to me
our October 12 meeting in which you promised genuine
regard to this matter, and assured me that your Off
intervene with the State Attorney's Office regardin this er; or
contact any of the identified individuals, port. tia itnesses, or
potential civil claimants and their respective u 1 i this matter,
and that neither your Office nor the (FBI] I ene regarding
the sentence Mr. Epstein receives pursu t ea with the State,
so long as that sentence does not vi at s w Indeed, so long
as Mr. Epstein's sentence does n e till violate the terms of the
Agreement, he is entitled to t o tenet available to him,
including but not limited to a tim d work release.
Sloman forwarded the letter a, commenting, "Wait [until] you see this one."
Villafafia replied:
Welcome to y world love the way that they want to interpret
this agreemen
so lodks like they are planning to ask for and receive a sentence
ower than the one we agreed to. Has anyone talked to Barry
Kn her) about this? Maybe this is the real reason for the delay in
ering the guilty plea? We also have to contact the victims to tell
them] about the outcome of the case and to advise them than an
attorney will be contacting them regarding possible claims against
Mr. Epstein. If we don't do that, it may be a violation of the Florida
Bar Rules for the selected attorney to "cold call" the girls.
1
146 the defense raised issues concerning the attorney representative, the statutory limit on damages, and
inclusion of certain victims.
92
CA/Aronberg-000560
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736198
Why don't we agree to mutual recission [sic] and indict him?
Acosta also weighed in, sending both Villafai%a and Sloman an email with a subject line
that read "This has to stop," in which he stated.
Just read the letter.
1. We specifically refined to include the provision saying that
we would not communicate. If I recall the conference call, we told
him we could not agree to a gag order using those words.
2. The purpose of the agreement was not an out o
settlement. Seems that they can't take no. Let's talk
roceed. I'm not sure we will ever agree on a letter [t. the s• al
about how to select an attorney representative] a nt.
Notwithstanding Acosta's assessment and prediction, a
draft addendum and they spoke by phone, the parties
terms.107
On October 25 2007, Sloman sent a letter
serve as special outlining the special
2007, Epstein an is attorneys Lefcourt an
name was printed as the USAO represen
addendum for her on behalf of the US
Villafafia later emailed
apparently related to the d
selection of the private atto
an sent to Letkowitz a new
ment on the addendum's
on whom the USAO had selected to
ties. A few days later, on October 29,
igned the NPA addendum.146 Villafafia's
at Villafafia's request, Sloman signed the
king him for "the advice and the pep talk," which
eys' allegation of impropriety concerning her initial
st the victims. Villafaha explained to Sloman:
The fu thing is that I had never met (and still haven't met) or
spoken private attorney] before I asked him if he would be
ling take on this case. . . . But as soon as you mentioned the
rance problem, I saw where the problem would arise and
that the Special would be a safer route. I just worry
at the defense's attacks on me could harm the victims.
S ponded that defense counsel had "put an . . . insidious spin" on Villafaiia's role in
pro ing the private attorney, but Sloman added, "I hope that you understand that these ad
homin m attacks against you do not diminish in our eyes what you and the agents have
accomplished"
IA/ Acosta and Villafana wen; copied on this email.
IC The Addendum is attached as Exhibit 4 to this Report.
93
CA/Aronberg-000561
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/28/2023 2:12:01 PM
EFTA02736199