275 the federal investigation I was cooperating in. If I had been told of a[n NPA], I would have objected.” Wild further stated in her declaration that, “Based on what the FBI had been telling me, I thought they were still investigating my case.” Neither the CEOS Trial Attorney nor the FBI case agent recalled the specifics of the victim interviews. The FBI reports memorializing each interview primarily addressed the facts elicited from the victim regarding Epstein’s abuse and did not describe any discussion about the status of the case or the victim’s view about the prosecution of Epstein.433 When asked whether she was concerned that failing to tell victims about the NPA when she was interviewing them would mislead victims, as previously noted, Villafaña told OPR that she believed she and the agents were conducting an investigation because they continued “interviewing witnesses” and “doing all these things” to file charges and prepare for a federal trial. As Villafaña stated, “So to me, saying to a victim the case is now back under investigation is perfectly accurate.” Villafaña was also aware that some victims were represented by counsel in connection with civil lawsuits against Epstein, but did not proactively inform the victims’ attorneys about the NPA. In a 2017 affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation, victims’ attorney Bradley Edwards alleged that during telephone calls with Villafaña, he “asked very specific questions about what stage the investigation was in,” and Villafaña replied that she could not answer his questions because the matter “was an on-going active investigation.” Edwards stated that Villafaña gave him “the impression that the Federal investigation was on-going, very expansive, and continuously growing, both in the number of identified victims and complexity.” Edwards also stated, “A fair characterization of each call was that I provided information and asked questions and Villafaña listened and expressed that she was unable to say much or answer the questions I was asking.” In her written response to OPR, Villafaña stated that she “listened more than [she] spoke” during her interactions with Edwards and that due to the “uncertainty of the situation” and the possibility of a trial, she “did not feel comfortable sharing any information about the case.” Villafaña also told OPR that because of “all of these concerns and instructions that I had been given by Alex [Acosta] and Jeff [Sloman] not to disclose things further and not to have any involvement in victim notification,” she felt “prohibited” from providing additional information to Edwards. Sloman told OPR that although neither the NPA terms nor the CVRA prevented the USAO from exercising its discretion to notify the victims, “[I]t was [of] concern that this was going to break down and . . . result in us prosecuting Epstein and that the victims were going to be witnesses and if we provided a victim notification indicating, hey, you’re going to get $150,000, that’s . . . going to be instant impeachment for the defense.”434 Acosta told OPR that, because Epstein did 433 As noted above, the FBI agent’s notes for one victim’s interview reported that she wanted another victim to be prosecuted. 434 When asked why the USAO did not simply notify the victims of the change of plea hearing, Sloman responded that he “was more focused on the restitution provisions. I didn’t get the sense that the victims were overly interested in showing up . . . at the change of plea.”

276 not plead guilty in October 2007 as the USAO expected, it was a “very open question” whether the case would go to trial, and Acosta thought that “where there is no legal requirement[,] [t]here has to be discretion to judge how much you can tell the victims and when.” Epstein’s attorneys’ conduct during the period between the signing of the NPA and Epstein’s entry of his state guilty pleas illustrated the risk that Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña all identified. As Epstein’s counsel deposed victims related to the state court criminal charges and civil cases against Epstein, counsel suggested that the victims were motivated to testify against Epstein by the government’s promises of financial gain. For example, during a February 20, 2008 state deposition of a victim, defense counsel asked her whether the federal prosecutors or FBI agents told her that she was entitled to receive money from Epstein.435 In her 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafaña identified that line of questioning as a motivating factor in the government’s decision to stop notifying the victims about the potential for 18 U.S.C. § 2255 recovery. On June 27, 2008, the Friday before Epstein’s Monday, June 30, 2008 state court guilty plea hearing, Villafaña contacted Edwards to inform him about that upcoming hearing. Villafaña told OPR she “was not given authorization to contact” any victim’s attorney other than Edwards about the scheduled state plea hearing.436 In his 2017 affidavit prepared for the CVRA litigation, Edwards stated that Villafaña “gave the impression that she was caught off-guard herself that Epstein was pleading guilty or that this event was happening at all.” Edwards said in a 2016 court filing that Villafaña told him only that “Epstein was pleading guilty to state solicitation of prostitution charges involving other victims—not Mr. Edward’s clients nor any of the federally-identified victims.” Villafaña stated in her 2017 declaration that she “never told Attorney Edwards that the state charges involved ‘other victims,’ and neither the state court charging instrument nor the factual proffer limited the procurement of prostitution charge to a specific victim.” Villafaña told OPR she “strongly encouraged [Edwards] and his clients to attend” the plea hearing but “could not be more explicit” because she was not “authorized by the Office to disclose the terms of the NPA.” In his 2017 affidavit, Edwards acknowledged that “Villafaña did express that this hearing was important, but never told me why she felt that way.” Edwards claimed that Villafaña’s failure to inform him that the “guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement” resulted in his clients not attending the hearing. Edwards himself was out of town and not able to 435 As previously noted, the defense used Florida criminal procedure to depose potential federal victims to learn information concerning the federal investigation even though those individuals were not involved in the state prosecution. For example, in a March 2008 email, Villafaña informed her managers that she spoke to a victim who had received a subpoena “issued in connection with the state criminal case, which, as you know, doesn’t involve most of the victims in our case (including the girl who was subpoenaed).” Villafaña further observed that because Epstein is “going to plead to the solicitation of adults for prostitution charge [in state court], [the act of subpoenaing the victim] seems to be a clear effort to find out about our case through the state case.” 436 Villafaña’s June 30, 2008 handwritten notes reflect that, at the time of Epstein’s state court guilty plea, Villafaña was aware of the identities of a least five other attorneys representing Epstein’s victims. In her written response to OPR, Villafaña stated, “I requested permission to make oral notifications to the victims regarding the upcoming change of plea, but the Office decided that victim notification could only come from a state investigator, and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist.” On Saturday, June 28, 2008, Villafaña emailed Sloman to inform him that PBPD Chief Reiter “is going to notify victims about the plea.” Sloman replied, “Good.”

277 attend the hearing. In his affidavit, Edwards asserted, “[T]here was no possible way I could have believed that this state plea could affect the federal investigation or the rights of my clients in that federal investigation.” In Wild, the Eleventh Circuit panel stated that the government “seemingly” deferred to Epstein’s attorneys’ requests not to notify the victims about the NPA, and that in sending the January and May 2008 FBI letters, the government’s efforts “seem to have graduated from passive nondisclosure to (or at least close to) active misrepresentation.”437 Although both the appellate court and district court focused on the FBI’s letters for which OPR concludes that neither Villafaña, Sloman, nor Acosta was responsible, OPR considered the courts’ analyses in evaluating whether similar representations Villafaña made to the victims whom she interviewed on January 31 and February 1, 2008, and to Edwards, were misleading. Therefore, OPR considered whether Villafaña’s statements that the matter was “under investigation” and her failure to inform all of the victims whom she interviewed or Edwards about the NPA violated FRPC 4-4.1(a), 4-8.4(c), or 4-8.4(d). FRPC 4-4.1(a) prohibits an attorney from “knowingly mak[ing] a false statement of material fact or law to a third person” during the representation of a client. The FRPC defines “knowingly” as “denot[ing] actual knowledge of the fact in question” and states that such knowledge may be “inferred from circumstances.”438 The comment to FRPC 4-4.1 states that “[m]isrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements.” The comment references FRPC 4-8.4 “[f]or dishonest conduct that does not amount to a false statement.” Like FRPC 4-4.1(a), Rule 4-8.4(c) requires evidence that the attorney knew the statement in question was false. Under FRPC 4-8.4(c), the intent requirement can be satisfied “merely by showing that the conduct was deliberate or knowing” and the “motive underlying the lawyer’s conduct is not determinative; instead the issue is whether he or she purposefully acted.”439 In Feinberg, the court concluded that the prosecutor violated FRPC 4-4.1 and 4-8.4(c) and (d) by deliberately making untruthful statements to a defense attorney, despite evidence that the prosecutor intended to help the defendant by making the statements.440 In this case, Villafaña was fully aware of the signed NPA when she interviewed the victims on January 31 and February 1, 2008, and when she spoke to Edwards on the telephone, but she did not inform them specifically of the signed NPA. The question is whether this omission amounted to a knowing false statement or misrepresentation. One difficulty is determining what Villafaña actually said during conversations that participants were asked to recall many years later. With respect to three of the victims whom she interviewed in January and February 2008, Villafaña contended that she discussed the agreement with them, even if she did not specifically refer to it as the NPA or discuss all of its terms, and as 437 Wild, 955 F.3d at 1199-1200. 438 See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-Preamble: A Lawyer’s Responsibilities, “Terminology.” 439 Florida Bar v. Schwartz, 284 So. 3d 393, 396 (Fla. 2019) (citing Florida Bar v. Berthiaume, 78 So. 3d 503, 510 n.2 (Fla. 2011); Florida Bar v. Riggs, 944 So. 2d 167, 171 (Fla. 2006); Florida Bar v. Smith, 866 So. 2d 41, 46 (Fla. 2004)). 440 Florida Bar v. Feinberg, 760 So. 2d 933, 937-38 (Fla. 2000).

278 previously noted, there is some contemporaneous evidence supporting her assertion. Villafaña’s mention of the agreement, even if not described in specific terms, would have been sufficient to apprise those victims of the status of the federal investigation. Nevertheless, Villafaña did not recall discussing the NPA specifically or in general terms with other victims interviewed at that time, nor did she do so with Edwards or any other victim’s attorney. OPR therefore considered whether the omission of information about the existence of the NPA during these interactions rose to the level of professional misconduct in violation of FRPC 4-4.1 or 4-8.4.441 OPR evaluated Villafaña’s conduct in light of the comment to FRPC 4-4.1: A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client’s behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements. The victims and their attorneys were certainly not “opposing part[ies]” to the USAO, but the comment indicates that the rule recognizes that omissions made during discussions with third parties, even of relevant facts, are not always treated as false statements. Here, the evidence does not show that Villafaña knowingly made an affirmative false statement to the victims or Edwards or that her omissions were “the equivalent of affirmative false statements” about material facts. First, Villafaña told OPR that she believed the investigation was ongoing and her statement to that effect truthful, and as discussed earlier in this Chapter, the evidence shows that Villafaña and the agents did continue to investigate the case until Epstein entered his guilty plea in state court in June 2008. Villafaña’s email correspondence with her supervisors reflects her strong advocacy during that timeframe to declare Epstein in breach and to charge him. The evidence similarly does not show that Villafaña knowingly made any affirmative false statement to Edwards when she informed him of the state court plea, although she declined to provide additional information in response to his questions.442 Second, in reaching its conclusion, OPR considered the full context in which Villafaña interacted with the victims and Edwards. Prosecutors routinely make decisions about what information will be disclosed to witnesses, including victims, for a variety of strategic reasons. In many cases, prosecutors must make difficult decisions about providing information to witnesses, 441 In Florida Bar v. Joy, the court affirmed a referee’s conclusion that Joy violated FRPCs 4-4.1(a) and 4-8.4(c) “for making false statements by omission of material facts in his representations [to counsel].” Florida Bar v. Joy, 679 So. 2d 1165, 1166-68 (Fla. 1996). See also Florida Bar re Webster, 647 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1994) (petition for reinstatement denied due to “misrepresentation by omission”). 442 In Feinberg, 760 So. 2d at 938, the court found that an Assistant State Attorney lacked candor and violated ethics rules when, after meeting with a defendant outside his attorney’s presence, the prosecutor falsely stated to the defense attorney that he (the prosecutor) had not met with the defendant.

279 and they often cannot fully reveal either the facts or the status of an investigation, even with victims. The 2005 Guidelines advise that in consulting with a victim, prosecutors may be limited in their disclosures: “Because victims are not clients, may become adverse to the Government, and may disclose whatever they have learned from consulting with prosecutors, such consultations may be limited to gathering information from victims and conveying only nonsensitive data and public information.”443 Villafaña’s concern about generating potential impeachment evidence by informing victims of their potential to recover monetary damages from Epstein was not unreasonable. Indeed, the case agents initially raised the impeachment issue, and after considering the problem, Villafaña agreed with the agents’ concerns. Villafaña raised those concerns with the USAO’s Professional Responsibility Officer in October 2007 after the agents brought the issue to her attention, and she ultimately raised the issue with Sloman and Acosta as well, neither of whom advised her that those concerns were improper or unsound. OPR also considered that although Villafaña had sought to notify the victims in writing of the NPA soon after it was signed, her supervisor, the U.S. Attorney, had decided otherwise. When authorized to inform Edwards of the scheduled change of plea hearing, she did so. Although she did not inform Edwards that the plea was part of a global resolution that would end the federal investigation, the evidence does not show that Villafaña acted for the purpose of deceiving Edwards or preventing him from attending the hearing. Had she sought to exclude him from the state proceedings, she could have elected not to inform Edwards at all, or she could have discouraged him from attending the state proceedings. Rather, as Edwards confirmed, Villafaña told him the hearing was “important.” Villafaña sought to strike a difficult balance of securing Edwards’s (and his clients’) attendance at the state court plea, while obeying her management’s directive that informing victims of the resolution of the federal investigation should not be done until completion of the state plea. Therefore, after carefully considering all of the circumstances, OPR concludes that the evidence does not establish that Villafaña violated her obligations under FRPC 4-4.1 or 4-8.4(c) or (d).444 Nonetheless, as discussed below, Villafaña’s interactions with victims and victims’ attorneys without informing them of the NPA and the potential conclusion of the federal investigation contributed to the likelihood that the victims would feel that the government was 443 2005 Guidelines, Art. IV, ¶ B.2.c(1). As noted, some victims continued to express favorable views of Epstein during interviews with the government and they, or their attorneys, could have provided information to Epstein about the government’s communications. For example, within a day of Villafaña contacting a victim’s attorney about a potential victim notification letter, Starr complained to Acosta that the government had recently inappropriately provided “oral notification of the victim notification letter” to one girl’s attorney, even though it was clear from the girl’s recorded FBI interview that she “did not in any manner view herself as a victim.” 444 The case most directly on point is Smith, 109 A.3d 1184, in which the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed a violation of Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) based on a prosecutor’s failure to notify the victim of the resolution of a sex abuse case. However, as noted previously, in Smith, the criminal defendant had been arrested and charged before entering a plea, and various specific statutes afforded victims the right to receive notices and an opportunity to be heard concerning “a case originating by indictment or information in a circuit court.” In this case, for the reasons previously discussed, Villafaña did not have a clear and unambiguous obligation to inform the victims or Edwards of the NPA.

280 intentionally concealing information from them and was part of a series of interactions with victims that led to condemnation of the government’s treatment of victims.445 VI. THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO TREAT VICTIMS FORTHRIGHTLY AND WITH SENSITIVITY WHEN IT FAILED TO TIMELY PROVIDE VICTIMS WITH IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESOLUTION OF THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION Although OPR does not conclude that any of the subjects committed professional misconduct, either by failing to consult with the victims before the NPA was signed or in interactions afterwards, OPR’s findings are not an endorsement of the government’s course of action. The government’s interactions with victims confused and frustrated many of the victims, particularly the two CVRA petitioners and the two victims who had unsuccessfully attempted to join in the CVRA litigation. As a result, the victims’ and the public’s perception of the matter is that the prosecutors worked with Epstein’s attorneys to disenfranchise and silence the victims. It is unfortunate, and appears fundamentally unfair to the victims, that Acosta and Sloman (after Menchel and Lourie departed) took the unusual step of deciding to vet the USAO victim notification letters with the defense after the NPA was signed, but failed to go beyond the requirements of the CVRA or the 2005 Guidelines to consult with the victims before the NPA was signed. This result is contrary to the Department’s intent, as set forth in the 2005 Guidelines, that Department employees work to “minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of crime endure in its wake.” When considering the entirety of the government’s interactions with victims, OPR concludes that victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the Department. Wild’s criticisms of the government’s conduct were based on interactions that are similar to and generally representative of the government’s interactions with other Epstein victims and that demonstrate an overall lack of sensitivity to the victims by the government. Wild experienced a series of confusing and inconsistent communications in her interactions with Villafaña and the case agents. Wild received Villafaña’s letter in June 2007 stating inaccurately that she was a federal victim entitled to CVRA rights. She was interviewed by the FBI in August 2007 but was not told that a potential outcome was a state plea. Shortly after the September 24, 2007 signing of the NPA, the FBI contacted her to inform her of the resolution of the federal case. Nonetheless, on January 10, 2008, the FBI sent her a victims’ rights letter indicating that the case was under investigation and that some of her CVRA rights may not apply until after the defendant was charged. On January 31, 2008, Villafaña re-interviewed Wild, along with a CEOS attorney and the FBI agents, and told Wild that the case was under investigation, but did not specifically mention the NPA, although she may have mentioned a possible resolution. In mid-June 2008, when Edwards contacted Villafaña on Wild’s behalf, Villafaña informed him that the case was under investigation but did not mention the NPA. Just before Epstein’s June 30, 2008 state court plea, 445 OPR notes that, similar to Villafaña, Sloman interacted with a victim’s attorney during the time period between the signing of the NPA and Epstein’s state guilty plea. In January 2008, Sloman received a telephone call from his former law partner, who represented one of the victims and who asked Sloman whether the federal government could bring charges against Epstein. Sloman, concerned about the potential for conflict of interest allegations due to his prior business relations with the attorney, refused to answer any questions regarding Epstein. Because Sloman refused to provide any information, OPR found no basis for finding that Sloman misled the attorney.

281 Villafaña informed Edwards about the state plea, but did not mention the NPA or the fact that the state pleas would resolve the federal investigation. Edwards then filed the CVRA petition and learned about the NPA signed months earlier and that the federal investigation of Epstein had concluded with Epstein’s state guilty pleas. Wild only received access to the NPA when a judge permitted it in August 2008 pursuant to a protective order. After considering this series of interactions, it is not surprising that Wild came away from the experience feeling confused and believing she had been misled. OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that Villafaña, Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, or Lourie opted not to consult with the victims in order to protect Epstein or shield the NPA from public scrutiny. Although neither Sloman nor Acosta could recall a specific discussion of CVRA obligations before the NPA was signed, both recalled knowing that victim consultation was not required, and Menchel also told OPR that consultation was not required, at least not up to the point when he left the USAO. The evidence is clear that Villafaña sought at various points to consult with and to notify victims about the details of the NPA but was constrained before the NPA was signed by managers who either made a decision to not consult victims or did not address the issue after it was raised, and after the signing by her own concern about creating possible impeachment evidence that would damage the victims’ credibility at a possible trial. Nonetheless, a more open and straightforward approach with the victims, both before and after the signing of the NPA, would have been the better practice. Before the NPA was signed, victims could have been asked for their views about the general terms the USAO was contemplating offering, including that a plea to state charges was one of the options being considered; asked for their views in general about a guilty plea; or, at a minimum, asked to share their views of how the case should be resolved. Even if the USAO ultimately determined to proceed with the NPA, the government would have had the benefit of the victims’ thoughts and concerns, particularly on the issue of punishment, and victims would have felt included in the process. OPR found no evidence that the benefits of victim consultation were discussed or considered before the NPA was signed. After the NPA was signed, no one from the government explained the agreement to the majority of the victims until months later and only after the entry of Epstein’s guilty plea. Although the evidence supports Villafaña’s assertion that she acted from a good faith belief that Epstein might breach the NPA and a potential trial would be harmed if information about the NPA was divulged to the victims and their counsel, she, Sloman, and Acosta failed to consider how the desire to shield the victims from that potential impeachment might impact the victims’ sense of the openness and fairness of the process. As Wild stated during the CVRA litigation, she believed she had been “mistreated in the process.” When deciding not to inform the victims of the NPA to avoid creating impeachment evidence, Villafaña, Sloman, and Acosta do not appear to have carefully considered possible alternatives to, or all of the ramifications of, that decision, nor did they revisit the decision before Villafaña met the victims in person to discuss a potential trial or spoke to Edwards or other attorneys representing victims.446 Furthermore, more attention needed 446 It is not at all clear whether a court would have permitted impeachment of the victims concerning one provision in a plea agreement that otherwise could not be used as evidence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) (“The admissibility or inadmissibility of a plea, a plea discussion, and any related statement is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 410.”). In any case, the victims could have been impeached regarding the possibility of their obtaining monetary damages through either a civil suit or through 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (if Epstein were convicted after a trial),

282 to be paid to the FBI’s communications to ensure that the victims were receiving accurate and timely information that was consistent with the status of the case and with the USAO’s communications with victims.447 The decision not to inform victims and their attorneys about the existence of the NPA gave victims and the public the misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein’s counsel to keep the agreement secret from the victims. Moreover, the lack of openness about the NPA gave the impression that the USAO lacked sensitivity for the victims in resolving the matter and undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting plea agreement. The overall result of the subjects’ anomalous handling of this case left at least some of the victims feeling ignored and frustrated, failed to promote their healing process, and resulted in extensive public criticism. Although OPR credits Villafaña’s statements that she wanted to go beyond her obligations in dealing with victims, the end result nonetheless was that communications with victims were not prioritized by the USAO. In part this was due to the fact that interactions with victims are generally handled by staff in the USAO and the FBI who are trained and have expertise in dealing with victims and other witnesses. However, decisions made by Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña also contributed to the problems. The government, as it ultimately acknowledged in the CVRA litigation, could have, and should have, engaged with the victims in a more transparent and unified fashion. OPR recognizes that the Epstein investigation occurred soon after the passage of the CVRA. In the years since, the Department’s prosecutors and personnel have become more familiar with its provisions. OPR encourages the Department as a whole to take the issues discussed above into account when providing training and direction to its employees regarding victims’ rights to ensure that in the future, Department attorneys’ actions promote victim inclusion whenever possible.448 For example, although the division of responsibility between the FBI and the USAO for communicating with victims works efficiently and appropriately in the average case, the USAO failed to consider that in a case involving a pre-charge disposition, the victims were receiving inconsistent and confusing communications from the separate entities. In certain cases, such as the Epstein case, prosecutors may need to provide more oversight when multiple Department components are communicating with victims to avoid providing confusing and contradictory messages. independent of the NPA provision. OPR also notes that impeachment regarding the NPA provision may have permitted the government to rehabilitate the victims through their prior statements to law enforcement. In other words, while the USAO’s view concerning potential impeachment was not unreasonable, more extensive consideration of the case agent’s concerns might have led the prosecutors to conclude that the risk of the information being used to significantly damage the credibility of the victims was low. 447 In addition to the FBI letters previously discussed, another example of the inconsistent communication can be seen in letters that were to be sent after Epstein entered his guilty plea to two victims residing in foreign countries. Although OPR was unable to confirm that the two victims actually received the letters, it appears from the records OPR reviewed that the government intended to provide them with a standard FBI letter stating that the case was under investigation while also providing them with a USAO letter stating that the case had been resolved through Epstein’s state guilty plea. 448 OPR understands that the Department is in the process of revising the 2011 Guidelines.

283 CONCLUSION In November 2018, the Miami Herald published an extensive investigative report about state and federal criminal investigations initiated more than 12 years earlier into allegations that Jeffrey Epstein, a wealthy financier with residences in Florida, New York, and other United States and foreign locations, had coerced girls into engaging in sexual activity with him at his Palm Beach, Florida estate. The Miami Herald reported that in 2007, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, R. Alexander Acosta, entered into an “extraordinary” deal with Epstein that permitted Epstein to avoid federal prosecution and a potentially lengthy prison sentence by pleading guilty in state court to “two prostitution charges,” immunized from prosecution Epstein’s co-conspirators, and concealed from Epstein’s victims the terms of the NPA. Following the Miami Herald’s report, and after receiving a Congressional request to investigate, OPR initiated an investigation into the allegations that prosecutors in the USAO improperly resolved the federal investigation into the criminal conduct of Jeffrey Epstein by negotiating and executing the NPA. OPR subsequently included in its investigation allegations stemming from judicial criticism of the government’s conduct relating to federal prosecutors’ and law enforcement agents’ interactions with Epstein’s victims. In July 2008, a victim, later joined by a second victim, filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida an emergency petition for enforcement of her rights under the CVRA. In February 2019, the district court found that the government violated the CVRA by failing to advise victims about its intention to enter into the NPA. The court also found that letters the government sent to victims after the NPA was signed, describing the investigation as ongoing, were misleading. During the course of its investigation, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of thousands of records from the USAO, the FBI, and other Department of Justice components. The records included emails, letters, memoranda, and investigative materials. OPR also collected and reviewed materials relating to the state investigation and prosecution of Epstein, including sealed pleadings, grand jury transcripts, and grand jury audio recordings; examined extensive publicly available information, including depositions, pleadings, orders, and other court records; and reviewed media reports and interviews, articles, podcasts, and books relating to the Epstein case. OPR conducted more than 60 interviews of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their supervisors, and FBI administrative personnel; current and former USAO staff and attorneys; current and former Department attorneys and senior managers; and the former State Attorney and Assistant State Attorney in charge of the state investigation of Epstein. OPR also interviewed or received written information from several victims and attorneys representing victims concerning victim contacts with the USAO and federal law enforcement. OPR identified the following five former USAO attorneys as subjects of its investigation based on information indicating that each of them was involved in the decision to resolve the case through the NPA or in the negotiations leading to the agreement: former U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, and former AUSAs Jeffrey H. Sloman, Matthew I. Menchel, Andrew C. Lourie, and Ann Marie C. Villafaña. Each subject submitted written responses detailing their involvement in the federal investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and decisions relating to victim notification and consultation. OPR conducted extensive interviews of all five subjects. The subjects also submitted comments on OPR’s draft report.

284 OPR evaluated the conduct of each subject based on his or her individual role in various decisions and events and assessed that conduct pursuant to OPR’s analytical framework. OPR found that Acosta made the pivotal decision to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through a state-based plea 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. Therefore, OPR considers Acosta to be responsible for the NPA and for the actions of the other subjects who implemented his decisions. Based on its extensive investigation, OPR concludes that the subjects did not commit professional misconduct with respect to the development, negotiation, and approval of the NPA. Under OPR’s framework, professional misconduct requires a finding that a subject attorney 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 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 a trial on the victims led them to prefer a pre-charge resolution and that Acosta’s concerns about the proper role of the federal government in prosecuting solicitation crimes resulted in his preference for a state-based resolution. Accordingly, OPR does not find that Acosta engaged in professional misconduct by resolving the federal investigation of Epstein in the way he did or that the other subjects committed professional misconduct through their implementation of Acosta’s decisions. Nevertheless, OPR concludes that Acosta’s decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA constitutes poor judgment. Although this decision was within the scope of Acosta’s broad discretion and OPR does not find that it resulted from improper factors, the NPA was a flawed mechanism for satisfying the federal interest that caused the government to open its investigation of Epstein. In Acosta’s view, the federal government’s role in prosecuting Epstein was limited by principles of federalism, under which the independent authority of the state should be recognized, and the federal responsibility in this situation was to serve as a “backstop” to state authorities by encouraging them to do more. However, Acosta failed to consider the difficulties inherent in a resolution that relied heavily on action by numerous state officials over whom he had no authority; he resolved the federal investigation before significant investigative steps were completed; and he agreed to several unusual and problematic terms in the NPA without the consideration required under the circumstances. In sum, Acosta’s application of federalism

285 principles was too expansive, his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too narrow, and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use the NPA. Furthermore, because Acosta assumed a significant role in reviewing and drafting the NPA and the other three subjects who were supervisors left the USAO, were transitioning to other jobs, or were absent at critical junctures, Acosta should have ensured more effective coordination and communication during the negotiations and before approving the final NPA. The NPA was a unique resolution, and one that required greater oversight and supervision than Acosta provided. OPR further concludes that none of the subject attorneys committed professional misconduct with respect to the government’s interactions with victims. The subjects did not intentionally or recklessly violate a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA by entering into the NPA without consulting with victims, 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 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 subjects. Moreover, the statement that the matter was “under investigation” was not false because the government in fact continued to investigate the case in anticipation that Epstein would not fulfill the terms of the NPA. However, the letters risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim frustration and confusion by failing to provide important information about the status of the investigation. The letters also demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies responsible for communicating with Epstein’s victims and showed a lack of attention to and oversight regarding communication with victims. After the NPA was signed, Acosta elected to defer to the State Attorney the decision whether to notify victims about the state’s plea hearing pursuant to the state’s own victim’s rights requirements. Although Acosta’s decision was within his authority and did not constitute professional misconduct, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to make certain that the state intended to and would notify victims identified through the federal investigation about the state plea hearing. His decision left victims uninformed about an important proceeding that resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had communicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the Department intentionally sought to silence the victims. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were made aware of a court proceeding that was related to their own cases, and thus he failed to ensure that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity.

286 OPR concludes that the decision 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 records show that these actions were based on strategic concerns about creating impeachment evidence that Epstein’s victims had financial motives to make claims against him, evidence that could be used against victims at a trial, and were not for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the failure to reevaluate the strategy prior to interviews of victims and discussions with victims’ attorneys occurring in 2008 led to interactions that contributed to victims’ feelings that the government was intentionally concealing information from them. After examining the full scope and context of the government’s interactions with victims, OPR concludes 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 that the victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the Department.

287 METHODOLOGY A. Document Review As referenced in the Executive Summary, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of documents from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO), other U.S. Attorney’s offices, the FBI, and other Department components, including the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Division, and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA). The categories of documents reviewed by OPR, and their sources, are set forth below. 1. USAO Records The USAO provided OPR with access to all of its records from its handling of the Epstein investigation and the CVRA litigation. The records included, but were not limited to, boxes of material that Villafaña updated and maintained through the course of both actions, which contained pleadings from the Epstein investigation, the CVRA litigation, and other related cases; extensive compilations of internal and external correspondence, including letters and emails; evidence such as telephone records, FBI reports, material received from the state investigation, and other confidential investigative records; court transcripts; investigative transcripts; prosecution team handwritten notes; research material; and draft and final case documents such as the NPA, prosecution memoranda, and federal indictments. The USAO also provided OPR with access to filings, productions, and privileged material in the CVRA litigation; Outlook data collected to respond to production requests in that case; a set of Epstein case documents maintained by Acosta and Sloman; computer files regarding the Epstein case collected by Sloman; Villafaña’s Outlook data; Acosta’s hard drive; and the permanently retained official U.S. Attorney records of Acosta held by the Federal Records Center. 2. EOUSA Records EOUSA provided OPR with Outlook data from all five subjects and six additional witnesses. This information, dating back to 2005, included all inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and saved emails, and calendar entries that it maintained. EOUSA provided OPR with over 850,000 Outlook records in total (not including email attachments or excluding duplicate records). OPR identified key time periods and fully reviewed those records. OPR applied search terms to the remainder of the records and reviewed any responsive documents. After reviewing the emails, OPR identified a data gap in Acosta’s email records: his inbox contained no emails from May 26, 2007, through November 2, 2008. This gap, however, was not present with respect to Acosta’s sent email. OPR requested that EOUSA investigate. During its investigation, EOUSA discovered a data association error that incorrectly associated Acosta’s data with an unrelated employee who had a similar name. Once the data was properly associated, EOUSA found and produced 11,248 Acosta emails from April 3, 2008, through the end of his tenure at the USAO. However, with respect to the remaining emails, EOUSA concluded that the emails were not transferred from the USAO when, in 2008 and 2009, Outlook data for all U.S.

288 Attorney’s Offices was migrated to EOUSA’s centralized system to be maintained. The USAO’s data was migrated between March and June 2008. EOUSA and OPR separately confirmed with the USAO that it was unable to locate any additional emails. OPR questioned Acosta, as well as numerous administrative staff, about the email gap. Acosta and the witnesses denied having any knowledge of the problem, or that they or, to their knowledge, anyone else made any efforts to intentionally delete the emails. In addition, at OPR’s request, EOUSA conducted an analysis of records migrated from four other U.S. Attorney’s Offices and found that each office provided data that also contained significant gaps in their U.S. Attorney email records, although the time periods varied for each office. OPR found no evidence indicating that the gap in Acosta’s emails was caused by any intentional act or for the purpose of concealing evidence relating to the Epstein investigation and concludes that it was most likely the result of a technological error. Although a gap in Acosta’s email inbox from May 26, 2007, through April 2, 2008, remained, OPR was nonetheless able to examine a significant number of Acosta’s emails from this time due to the extensive case files kept by the USAO; the availability of Acosta’s sent email, which did not contain a similar gap; and the availability of emails of other USAO subjects and witnesses who were included on emails with Acosta. 3. Federal Bureau of Investigation Records OPR worked with the FBI’s Palm Beach Office, including with two case agents and the Victim Witness Specialist who worked on the Epstein matter, to obtain relevant FBI documents. In addition, the FBI searched its Automated Case Support system and also provided documentation concerning its victim notification system. 4. Criminal Division Records The Office of the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division provided OPR with Outlook data for the four individuals from that Office who examined issues connected to the USAO’s Epstein investigation. The data included the individuals’ inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and saved emails, and calendar entries. CEOS also provided OPR with Outlook data for the four individuals from that office who worked on, or examined issues connected to, the USAO’s Epstein investigation. The data included the individuals’ inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and saved emails. CEOS also conducted a check of its shared hard drive and provided documents that were potentially relevant to OPR’s investigation. 5. Office of the Deputy Attorney General Records OPR obtained Outlook data for the three individuals from the Office of the Deputy Attorney who examined issues connected to the USAO’s Epstein investigation, including the former Deputy Attorney General. The data included the individuals’ inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and saved emails, and calendar entries.

289 6. U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida Records The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida provided OPR with records related to its review of evidence against Epstein, after he concluded his Florida state sentence, when the Department recused the USAO in August 2011 from “all matters, to include the investigation and potential prosecution, relating to Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged sexual activities with minor females,” and assigned the matter to the Middle District of Florida U.S. Attorney’s Office for further consideration. The records included a declination of the matter due to the NPA. 7. U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia Records The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia provided OPR with records related to its work on the CVRA litigation after the recusal of the USAO. 8. Public Records OPR obtained and reviewed a variety of public records, including publicly released records of the Palm Beach Police Department, the State Attorney’s Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit, and the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office; documents pertaining to the CVRA litigation and other court proceedings involving Epstein and related individuals; and books and media reports. B. Information from Subjects, Witnesses, and Victims 1. Subjects OPR requested that all five subjects provide written responses detailing their involvement in the federal investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and decisions relating to victim notification and consultation. In addition, OPR conducted extensive interviews of each subject under oath and before a court reporter. Each subject was represented by counsel and had access to relevant contemporaneous documents before the subject’s OPR interview. The subjects reviewed and provided comments on their interview transcripts and on OPR’s draft report. 2. Witnesses OPR conducted more than 60 interviews of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their supervisors, and FBI administrative personnel. OPR interviewed current and former USAO staff and attorneys and current and former Department attorneys and senior managers, including former Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip and former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Alice Fisher. OPR also interviewed former State Attorney Barry Krischer and former Assistant State Attorney Lanna Behlolovick. 3. Communications with Victims and Victims’ Attorneys OPR contacted attorneys known to represent 26 victims among the 30 surviving individuals who were identified in the USAO’s July 2008 listing of 32 victims the USAO was prepared to include in federal charges against Epstein and who accordingly were entitled to the benefits of the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 monetary damages provision of the NPA. OPR contacted the attorneys to invite

290 the victims to provide OPR with information regarding their contacts with, and notification received from, the FBI and USAO, during the period before the NPA was signed or before Epstein’s state plea hearing, about the status of the federal investigation, about Epstein’s state plea, or about the NPA. OPR received information from or pertaining to 13 victims.

(;+,%,7  6WDWH ,QGLFWPHQW

[Page Intentionally Left Blank]

p INDICTMENT cy ~ !~~ ;-- - I'"'.") • A TRUE BILL 0/o-' Cff.5JtU:')~~ ~ y:+-, l.. • 2r,,=: r- lN THE NAME OF AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF FL~ig A ~ IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA \7 C.:) . ·:, ~:"2 -0 ......... .. ::.!: : :::: . ·-, ·:~.=jn N ._ . .J .- :-<~ .r- For Palm Beach County, at the Spring Term thereof, in the year of our Lord Two Tho~j(id and Six, to-wit: The Grand Jurors of the State of Florida, inquiring in and for the body of said County of Palm Beach, upon their oaths do present that JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN in the County of Palm Beach aforesaid, in the Circuit and State aforesaid, COUNT ONE FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION on or about or between the 1st day of August in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Four and October 31, 2005, did solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution lewdness, or assignation, contrary to Florida Statute 796.07(1) on three or more occasions between August 01, 2004 and October 31, 2005, contrary to Florida Statute 796.07(2)(f) and (4)(c}. (3 DEG FEL)(LEVEL 1) against the form of the statute, to the evil example of all others, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida. Jeffrey E. Epstein, Race: White, Sex: Male, DOB: Issue Warrant

[Page Intentionally Left Blank]

(;+,%,7  6HSWHPEHU   'UDIW 1RQဨ3URVHFXWLRQ $JUHHPHQW

[Page Intentionally Left Blank]

3DJH 1 RI 4 IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN ___________________________/ NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT IT APPEARING that Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter “Epstein”) is reported to have committed offenses against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around October 2005, including: (1) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371; (2) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e); (3) using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2; (4) traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and (5) knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and IT APPEARING that Epstein has accepted responsibility for his behavior by his

3DJH 2 RI 4 signature on this Agreement; and IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein’s background, that the interest of the United States and Epstein’s own interest and the interest of justice will be served by the following procedure; THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set out below. Should Epstein violate any of the conditions of this Agreement, the United States Attorney may at any time initiate prosecution against Epstein for any offense. In this case, the United States Attorney will furnish Epstein with notice specifying the conditions of the Agreement which he has violated. After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on page 1 of this Agreement will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. Neither this Agreement nor any other document filed with the United States Attorney as part of this Agreement will be used against Epstein, except for impeachment purposes, in connection with any prosecution for the above-described offenses. Terms of the Agreement: 1. Epstein shall plead guilty (not nolo contendere) to an Information filed by the State Attorney’s Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter, the “State Attorney’s Office”) charging violations of the following Florida Statutes: (a) lewd and lascivious battery on a child, in violation of Fl. Stat. 800.04(4); (b) solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. 796.03; and (c) engaging in sexual activity with minors at least sixteen years of age, in violation of Fl. Stat. 794.05. 2. Epstein and the State Attorney’s Office shall make a joint, binding recommendation that Epstein serve at least two years in prison, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing; and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment.

3DJH 3 RI 4 3. Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State Attorney’s Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and sentence. 4. Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein will not contest that the identified victims are persons who, while minors, were victims of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections(s) 2422 and/or 2423. 5. The United States shall provide Epstein’s attorneys with a list of the identified victims, which will not exceed forty, after Epstein has signed this agreement and entered his guilty plea. The United States shall make a motion with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the identified victims and Epstein’s counsel may contact the identified victims through that counsel. 6. Epstein shall enter his guilty plea and be sentenced not later than September 28, 2007, and shall begin service of his sentence not later than October 15, 2007. By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to investigate and prosecute Epstein for any and all federal offenses. By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this agreement and the breach of this

3DJH 4 RI 4 agreement. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury. By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. Dated: ___________ ____________________________________ Jeffrey Epstein Dated: ___________ ____________________________________ Roy Black, Esq. Counsel to Jeffrey Epstein R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: ___________ ____________________________________ By: A. Marie Villafaña Assistant United States Attorney

(;+,%,7  6HSWHPEHU   1RQဨ3URVHFXWLRQ $JUHHPHQW

[Page Intentionally Left Blank]

INRE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN ------------'' NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter, the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"); IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including: (1) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b ); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371; (2) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b ); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e); (3) using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2; ( 4) traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females; in violation Page 1 of 7

of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b ); and (5) knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(l); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(l) and 2; and IT APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefits provided by this agreement, he agrees to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain actions with the State Attorney's Office; IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State Attorney's Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the Defendant will be served by the following procedure; THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below. If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely notice specifying the condition( s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of the Agreement. After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. Page 2 of 7

Terms of the Agreement: 1. Epstein shall plead guilty (not nolo contendere) to the Indictment as currently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495AXXXMB) charging one (1) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. § 796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.03; 2. Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows: (a) Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment; and (b) Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail as described in Term 2(a), supra. 3. This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit accepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the State Attorney's Office and Epstein, the details of which are set forth in this agreement. 4. The terms contained in paragraphs 1 and 2, supra, do not foreclose Epstein and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend any additional charge(s) or any additional term(s) of probation and/or incarceration. 5. Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except a sentence that exceeds what is set forth in paragraph (2), supra. 6. Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all Page 3 of 7

proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering into those agreements. 7. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced. Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals through that representative. 8. If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any criminal or civil liability. 9. Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United States. 10. Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), supra, neither Epstein's signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or settlements by Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United States. 11. Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be Page 4 of 7

sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not later than January 4, 2008. 12. Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to gain time, other than the rights, opportunities, and benefits as any other inmate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit based on standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of Florida. At the United States' request, Epstein agrees to provide an accounting of the gain time he earned during his period of incarceration. 13. The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part 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. Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that it is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his best efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use his best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement. In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal char es against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Further, upon execution of this agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement. The defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to quash certain. grand jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, inviolate until all of the terms of this agreement have been satisfied. Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, all outstanding grand jury subpoenas shall be deemed withdrawn. Page 5 of 7

By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all federal offenses. By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this agreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the grand jury's investigation. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that was the subject of the grand jury's investigation, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury as to any such offense. Ill Ill Ill Page 6 of 7

By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. Dated: ----- DatedM Dated: ----- Dated: ----- By: R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY A. MARIE VILLAFANA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7

By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. Dated: q/2._7 /o7 Dated: ----- Dated: 7 /'-4 / 0? Dated: - ---- By: R. ALEXANDER A COST A UNITED STA TES A 1TORNEY , ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY LIL,L YANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7

By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. Dated: ----- Dated: --- -- Dated: - ---- By: R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY A. MARIE VILLAFANA ASSIST ANT U.S. A TIORNEY JEFFREY EPSTEIN GERALD LEFCOUR.T, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN ANN Z,ESQ. A TIORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7

[Page Intentionally Left Blank]

(;+,%,7  $GGHQGXP WR WKH 1RQဨ3URVHFXWLRQ $JUHHPHQW

[Page Intentionally Left Blank]

 ##   & #











%  ! 
$ " ’› ŒCC%˜“”‘   
b
 

Î  T&¾
Å   
†s  - I
•x–
h ^


 qÃ

¼
 m  ‡nr*   c


 N N³
¨  ·9Ô@Š A" Ÿ
.ÙP
 Dï
  
\5   £X   


 e3y  

 ¤ ¸ ù!f¿ k6 + Ì
 ( 
 ±5  ]? J  
o ú
8t 
9
 
ä
 
[

R
¹ 
<'j! G
6¶
0 Ö
\ 



" '4
 ÚR
0 D>


 ) <   
 8ø  Ø Æ


> ñ^z é,  
.
 ™
  % 
 
 ð
  ( UÏ
Û ² S
í  g4
gå
 à
[

¡î'
h

 F 



  { `   2
´: 
6  

 


O
} ˆ~ ž

 @; S9ÿ _

  _ @&
 FV7ê  
'
Ü
W
  &@|Ýè 
HË 2
Ъ @

 


O
 `
/a %Þ
Wp á

U
   i (
 


Ç
' 

); )V ! 
º 


×  À  Õ Í«   4
5 1  L B, 7» -Ž" —û  < ]ã -‹,  ë
= L/ â

  ßĀ Ä
¯

 Je
ôæ
l 


EÊ


§
  



   ÷€ œ2 Z?+ 3þ
?
+  8!  >
% 
X   3
K
 Y   
d
 :P °!
0  "  )u QI½
 
 1 
 


v = (ç
l 




Ñ
ó  µ:
 

 ;kj )ü  …‰ .š‚Bƒ  ##$$ 
Ò
  
ā 
a 
ì
 
¬* 
¢ M A ¥TÈ7  



   
d  Á
õ­ 


E
w   
H   ýc  fÂ
 É&   
=Ó
ò
 K
   i  ( 
Q
G   ##$$  
/b 
Z 1M
ö
 


Y
*   ¦

„

By signing th.,s Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. •. Epste!n. herebY. states that he understands the clarifications to the Non• Prosecution ·,A,gi;eementartd agrees fo comply with them. Dated: / o/4 o lo 7 Dated: ___ _ Dated: _......_ __ R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNrtE!) ~TA TES ATTORNEY By: 'r/•'-ff-tf~~ FillJcf/t -Ii, A. MARIE VlLLAPAf.rA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ . • COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. A 'ITORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTETN

By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. Dated: ID /2 fJ /01 Dated: ---- Dated: ---- R. ALEXANDER AGOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By, wt· 1-'()/4,.,,,__ f!IVSA cq A. MARIE V LAFA~A ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN

1·----·-... ·-· . ---. -····. ··"···--·-···- ... --··-··· ·--···-.. ·- .. ·-· . ...... . .. . .. ...... .. ---·--·--· --....... -.. . By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. Dated: ID /3 olo 7 . Dated: ---- Dated: ---- Dated: }fr~ '(fr R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: - y-~~a-- ri1WA ,1' A. MARIE LAF~A ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY EPSTEIN • GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN ~ ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN

(;+,%,7  6WDWH ,QIRUPDWLRQ

[Page Intentionally Left Blank]

IN THE CIRCUI~OURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUD IC~ CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION "W" (LB) () ~ c_f 9 32' / ST A TE OF FLORIDA ARISES FROM BOOKING NO.: 2006036744 vs. JEFFREY E EPSTEIN, W/M, I - - - - - - - ----------- ,, INFORMATION FOR: --~ -:-·, . .. .... ... 1) PROCURING PERSON UNDER 18 FOR PROSTITUION ·- ==· • · ·-- -:: -0 .... ..... ::::.: .. :..:~ w In the Name and by Authority of the State of Florida: . 2:<~ ~ BARRY E. KRISCHER, State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach <;aiiity~lorida, by and through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney, charges that JEFFREY E EPSTEIN on or about or between the 1 st day of August in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Four and October 9, 2005, did knowingly and unlawfully procure for prostitution, or caused to be prostituted,· • a person under the age of 18 years, contrary to Florida Statute 796.03. (2 DEG FEL) ST A TE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH vfA, 4 ;/1/IJ&i (~K'---. FL. BAR NO. 0776726 Assistant State Attorney Appeared before me, LANNA BELOHLA VEK Assistant State Attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, personally known to me, who, being first duly sworn, says that the allegations as set forth in the foregoing information are based upon facts that have been sworn to as true, and which, if true, would constitute the offense therein charged, that this prosecution is instituted in good faith, and certifies that testimony under oalh has been received from the material witness or wi'."'t9' ::?z¾ ~ LB/dp Assistant State Attorney Sworn to and subscribed to before me th~U~ay of June, 2008. , ..... .,,, Damaris Pm --~~,. -~~I•·j ·• f.{ :.) MYCOMMISSIOH# 005e0798 EXPIRES ~-- ,·'£: August 2. 201 O ',,;f;;.-'6,cr,:,o 80IO:D1HRUTIOYFAN~ INC .,. . .,,. FCIC REFERENCE NUMBERS: I) FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION 3699

[Page Intentionally Left Blank]