Epstein Secrets

ving O'Brien's Novem- ber 2002 complaint, Stolt-Nielsen hired John Nannes, a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, to con- duct an internal investigation of possible antitrust violations by the Company and advise it regarding any criminal liability. On Novembe

risdiction to enforce or modify its order. Two years later, in July 1985, as part of a criminal investigation based on a referral from the FDA to the Department of Jus- tice, the government applied for and ob- tained a warrant to search an office com- plex that, as the warrant stated, housed the administrative offices of

ed its new antitrust policy. On June 24, 2003, the Government charged Wingfield by criminal complaint with violating the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § I. The Government withdrew its grant of conditional leniency to Stolt- Nielsen on March 2, 2004, and announced that it intended to indict the Company and Wingfield

n the Court's view, an empty gesture. And, it comes into pay only after Mr. Epstein has fled the Court's jurisdiction. According to the Government, "The Department of Justice's Office of International Affairs is unaware of any country anywhere in the world that would consider an anticipatory extradition waiver binding. And

September 24, 2007 — Mr. Epstein paid $100,000 to "a company founded and run by [Individual I]," and he paid $250,000 to [Individual II]. Dkt. 23 at I. The Government states that Individual I was "a potential co-conspirator—[] for whom Epstein obtained protection in a the NPA." Id. Individual I was named and feat

n the Court's view, an empty gesture. And, it comes into pay only after Mr. Epstein has fled the Court's jurisdiction. According to the Government, "The Department of Justice's Office of International Affairs is unaware of any country anywhere in the world that would consider an anticipatory extradition waiver binding. And

September 24, 2007 — Mr. Epstein paid $100,000 to "a company founded and run by [Individual I]," and he paid $250,000 to [Individual II]. Dkt. 23 at I. The Government states that Individual I was "a potential co-conspirator—[] for whom Epstein obtained protection in a the NPA." Id. Individual I was named and feat

n the Court's view, an empty gesture. And, it comes into pay only after Mr. Epstein has fled the Court's jurisdiction. According to the Government, "The Department of Justice's Office of International Affairs is unaware of any country anywhere in the world that would consider an anticipatory extradition waiver binding. And

September 24, 2007 — Mr. Epstein paid $100,000 to "a company founded and run by [Individual I]," and he paid $250,000 to [Individual II]. Dkt. 23 at I. The Government states that Individual I was "a potential co-conspirator—[] for whom Epstein obtained protection in a the NPA." Id. Individual I was named and feat

n the Court's view, an empty gesture. And, it comes into pay only after Mr. Epstein has fled the Court's jurisdiction. According to the Government, "The Department of Justice's Office of International Affairs is unaware of any country anywhere in the world that would consider an anticipatory extradition waiver binding. And

September 24, 2007 — Mr. Epstein paid $100,000 to "a company founded and run by [Individual I]," and he paid $250,000 to [Individual II]. Dkt. 23 at I. The Government states that Individual I was "a potential co-conspirator—[] for whom Epstein obtained protection in a the NPA." Id. Individual I was named and feat