Epstein Secrets

d victims relevant to Count One of the instant Indictment. In the fall of 2007, the Defendant entered into a non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") with the Southern District of Florida in connection with the conduct at issue in that investigation, which the non-prosecution agreement identified as including investigations

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

d victims relevant to Count One of the instant Indictment. In the fall of 2007, the Defendant entered into a non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") with the Southern District of Florida in connection with the conduct at issue in that investigation, which the non-prosecution agreement identified as including investigations

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

d victims relevant to Count One of the instant Indictment. In the fall of 2007, the Defendant entered into a non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") with the Southern District of Florida in connection with the conduct at issue in that investigation, which the non-prosecution agreement identified as including investigations

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

d victims relevant to Count One of the instant Indictment. In the fall of 2007, the Defendant entered into a non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") with the Southern District of Florida in connection with the conduct at issue in that investigation, which the non-prosecution agreement identified as including investigations

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

ven transac- tional immunity. Finally, the prosecutor most intimately involved with the agree- ment Patrick Sullivan, an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Flor- ida had no recollection of any involvement with Jerry Lee Harvey.' He could not remember speaking to the Mobile U.S. At- torney's office o

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