Epstein Secrets

that the person transported was, in fact, a minor, but need not prove that the defendant was aware of her minority. In conducting its analysis, the Jones Court relied upon cases interpreting sections of Title 21 relating to the distribution of drugs to a minor. See Jones at 540. Those cases have held that t

ed above, I originally considered charging Epstein with promotion money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3)(A). After conferring with the Money Laundering Section at the Department of Justice, it was recommended that I forego the Section 1956 charge and, instead, I should charge Epstein with aiding and abetti

that the person transported was, in fact, a minor, but need not prove that the defendant was aware of her minority. In conducting its analysis, the Jones Court relied upon cases interpreting sections of Title 21 relating to the distribution of drugs to a minor. See Jones at 540. Those cases have held that t

ed above, I originally considered charging Epstein with promotion money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3)(A). After conferring with the Money Laundering Section at the Department of Justice, it was recommended that I forego the Section 1956 charge and, instead, charge Epstein with aiding and abetting the un

that the person transported was, in fact, a minor, but need not prove that the defendant was aware of her minority. In conducting its analysis, the Jones Court relied upon cases interpreting sections of Title 21 relating to the distribution of drugs to a minor. See Jones at 540. Those cases have held that t

ed above, I originally considered charging Epstein with promotion money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3)(A). After conferring with the Money Laundering Section at the Department of Justice, it was recommended that I forego the Section 1956 charge and, instead, charge Epstein with aiding and abetting the un

that the person transported was, in fact, a minor, but need not prove that the defendant was aware of her minority. In conducting its analysis, the Jones Court relied upon cases interpreting sections of Title 21 relating to the distribution of drugs to a minor. See Jones at 540. Those cases have held that t

ed above, I originally considered charging Epstein with promotion money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3)(A). After conferring with the Money Laundering Section at the Department of Justice, it was recommended that I forego the Section 1956 charge and, instead, I should charge Epstein with aiding and abetti