of the second degree." For purposes of "this section, 'sexual activity' means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activityla not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose." Florida Statutes Section 794.021 states that "ignorance of the age [of the victim] is no defense," and that neither "misrepresentation of age by [the victim] nor a bona fide belief that such person is over the specified age [shall] be a defense." 11. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 800.04(5Xa) and 800.04(5Xc)(2), an adult "who intentio touches in a lewd or lascivious manner the breasts, genitals, genital area, or buttocks, or the clothing covering them, of a person less than 16 years of age, or forces or entices a person under 16 years of age to so touch the perpetrator, commits lewd or lascivious molestation," which is a felony of the second degree if the victim is 12 years of age or older bAs than 16 years of age. 12. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 800.04(6)(a) and 800.04(6)(b), an adult "who [i]ntentionally touches a person under 16 years of age in a lewd or lascivious manner or [s]olicits a person under 16 years of age to commit a lewd or lascivious act commits lewd or lascivious conduct," which is a felony of the second degree. 13. Pursuant to Florida Statutes SectioF00.04(7)(a) and 800.04(7)(c), an adult "who: (I) [i]ntentionally masturbates; (2) [i]ntentionally exposes the genitals in a lewd or lascivious manner; or (3) [i]ntentionally commits any other sexual act that does not involve actual physical or sexual contact with the victim, including, but not limited to . . . the simulation 3 EFTA00225781

2. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN employed L.G. to perform, among other things, services as a personal assistant. 1) Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and paid T.M., H.R., and A.F. to perform, among other things, recruiting services. 4. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN owned a property located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, in the Southern District of Florida (hereinafter referred to as '358 El Brillo Way"). 5. DefendaRFFREY EPSTEIN owned a property located at 9 East 71st Street, New York, New York (hereinafter referred to as "the New York residence"). 6. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN was the principal owner of JEGE, INC., a Delaware corporation. JEGE, INC.'s sole business activities related to the operation and ownership of a Boeing 727-31 aircraft bearing tail number N908JE. 7. Defendant JEFFREY STEIN served as president, sole director, and sole shareholder of JEGE, INC., and had the power to direct all of its operations. 8. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN was the principal owner of Hyperion Air, Inc., a Delaware corporation. Hyperion Air, Inc.'s sole business activities related to the operation and ownership of a Gulfstream G-1159B aircraft bearing tail number N909JE. F 9. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN se as president, sole director, and sole shareholder of Hyperion Air, Inc., and had the power to direct all of its operations. 10. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 794.05, a "person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony 2 EFTA00225782

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA D Case No: 18 U.S.C. § 371 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1) 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(2) 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) 18 U.S.C. § 2423(e) 18 U.S.C. § 2423(d) 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) UNITED STATES RAMERICA vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and • Defendants. A INDICTMENT The Grand Jury charges that: BACKGROUND At all times relevant to this Indictment: 1. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN employed defendants " and to perform, among other things, services as personal assistants. T EXHIBIT B-30 EFTA00225783

A. Villafaria, Esq. December 9, 2009 Page 3 our part would constitute a breach of the NPA. So the Rothstein lawyers, once again, are using the power of the federal government to perpetrate and further their fraud. And the expense of litigating these cases has been extreme. For example, Bob Josefsberg, who I do not believe was aware of the Rothstein crimes, is now demanding over $2 million in legal fees. As a lawsuit brought by some of the investors' claims, Rothstein and his partner Edwards used Jeffrey Epstein as bait. The litigation strategy, media pronouncements, and investigatory initiatives of Rothstein and Edwards were calculated to support Rothstein's deceptions rather than to advance the position of his clients. I bring these facts to your attention so that if you had contact with Edwards or those associated with him in the past concerning Mr. Epstein, you consider not continuing communications with any of them in the future. I would like a short conference with you in person to talk about Mr. Epstein's progress through the state criminal justice system, to discuss several outstanding issues that I want to make sure you have accurate information about, and, from my perspective, most importantly, so that I can provide Mr. Epstein with proper counsel going forward. If you email me some dates when you are available this month, we can schedule a short meeting in your office hopefully before the year ends. Roy Black RB/wg Enclosure Black, Srebnick. Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. EFTA00225784

ROY BLACK HOWARD M. SREBNICK Scan' A. KORNSPAN LARRY A. STUMPF. MARIA NEYRA JACKIE PERCZEK MARK A.J. SHAPIRO JARED LOPEZ BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN & STUMPF =PA.= December 9, 2009 A. Villafafia, Esq. Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 RE: Jeffrey Epstein Dear JESSICA FONSECA-NADER KATHLEEN P. PHILLIPS AARON ANTHON MARCOS BEATON, JR. MATTHEW P. O'BRIEN JENIPER J. SOULIKIAS NOAH FOX E-Mail: [email protected] You emailed me a letter on November 2, asking whether Jeffrey Epstein's place of employment remained constant. It has. I reviewed a Google map to confirm that the distance between that place of employment and the location where he was stopped by Palm Beach Police is less than 3 miles (and that the location where he was walking was on a direct route to his place of work). It has taken us a while to respond to your letter because other matters have consumed our time and effort. Over the past five weeks, the massive billion-dollar conspiracy created and run by Scott Rothstein has been exposed. On Monday, Mr. Epstein filed a state civil RICO lawsuit charging Rothstein, his partner Brad Edwards, and others with tortuous and fraudulent abuses of process that resulted in serious injury to Mr. Epstein. A copy of the Complaint is enclosed with this letter. ou sr know, Rothstein's firm represents and Wilde, three of the plaintiffs who have rou t civil actions against Mr. Epstein. The Rothstein firm was a criminal enterprise that used the litigation against Mr. Epstein to lure investors into its billion-dollar ponzi scheme. We believe that Rothstein and his co-conspirators used the government's criminal investigation as a means to perpetrate and further their fraud. For example: 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131 • Phone: Fax: a • www.RoyBlack.com EFTA00225785

West side of an existing concrete seawall and the northerly extension thereof as shown on the Adair & Brady, Inc., drawing IS-1298, dated March 25, 1981, and bounded on the East by the shoreline as shown on the plat of El Bravo Park, and bounded on the North and South by the Westerly extensions of the Sfokt and South lines respectively of Lot 40, containing 0.07 acres, more or Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1594(b). A TRUE BILL. FOREPERSON R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY A. VILLAFARA ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 54 EFTA00225786

(e) difficulty; has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without it is theiiiiegt of the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2253(o), to seek forfeiture of any other property of said defendant up to the value of the above forfeitable property. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2253. FORFEITURE 3 Upon convictidn'of any of the violations alleged in Counts 2-11 of this indictment, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, SARAH KELLEN, , a/k/a "Adrian Mucinska," and NADIA MARCINK0VA, shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, that was used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of such violation; and any propertl,:;real or personal, constituting or derived from any proceeds that such person obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of such violation, including but not limited to the following: a. A parcel of land located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida 33480, including all buildings, improvements, fixtures, attachments, and easements found therein or thereon, and more particularly described as: Being all of Lot 40 and the West 24.3 feet of Lot 39, El Bravo Park, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 9, in the records of Palm Beach County, Florida and BEING that portion lying West of Lot 40, El Bravo Park, in Section 27, Township 43 South, Range 43 East, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 9, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, being bounded kin' the West by the 53 EFTA00225787

offense; and any property, real or personal, used or intended to be used to commit or to promote the commission of such offense, including but not limited to the following: a. A parcel of land located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida 33480, including all buildings, improvements, fixtures, attachments, and easements found therein or thereon, and more particularly described as: Being all of Lot 40 and the West 24.3 feet of Lot 39, El Bravo Park, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 9, in the records of Palm Beach County, Florida and BEING that portion lying West of Lot 40, El Bravo Park, in Section 27, Township 43 South, Range 43 East, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 9, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, being bounded on the West by the West side of an existing concrete seawall and the northerly extension thereof as shown on the Adair & Brady, Inc., drawing IS-1298, dated March 25, 1981, and bounded on the East by the shoreline as shown on the plat of El Bravo Park, and bounded on the North and South by the Westerly extensions of the North and South lines respectively of Lot 40, containing 0.07 acres, more or less. I Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2253. If any of the forfeitable property described in the forfeiture section of this indictment, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ADRIANA ROSS, a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska," and NADIA Ea (a) cannot be located upon the exercise-of due diligence; (b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third person; (c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; (d) has been substantially diminished in value; or 52 EFTA00225788

Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461; Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C); and Title 21, United States Code, Section 853. If the property described above as being subject to forfeiture, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, SARAH a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska," and (1) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; (2) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with a third person; (3) has bectiiilaced beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; (4) has been substantially diminished in value; or (5) has been commingled with other property which cannot be subdivided without difficulty; it is the intent of the United States, putsuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), to seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendants up to the value of the above forfeitable property. All pursuant to Title 28 United States Code, Section 2461; Title 18, United States Code, Section 98I(a)(1)(C); and Title 21 United States Code, Section 853. FORFEITURE 2 Upon conviction of any of the violations alleged in Counts 12-29 of this indictment, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska," and NADIA MARCINKOVA, shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, constituting or traceable to gross profits or other proceeds obtained from such 51 EFTA00225789

Defendant(s) listed below traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with a person under 18 years of age, that is, the person(s) listed in each count below: Count Date(s) Minor(s) Involved Defendant(s) 26 7/16/2004 Jane Doe #7 Jane Doe #8 Jane Doe #9 Jane Doe #10 JEFFREY EPSTEIN NADIA MARCINKOVA 27 3/31/200;5 Jane Doe #14 Jane Doe #15 Jane Doe #16 JEFFREY EPSTEIN ADRI llasIAIM, a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska" 28 9/18/2005 Jane Doe #16 JEFFREY EPSTEIN a/k/a "Adriana Mucuiska" 29 9/29/05 Jae Doe #16 _ JEFFREY EPSTEIN SARAH ADRIAN'', a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska" All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2423(b) and 2. FORFEITURE 1 - . Upon conviction of the violation alleged ineount 1 of this indictment, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, SARAH KELLEN, ADRIANA ROSS, a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska," and shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the violation. 50 EFTA00225790

did knowingly and willfully conspire with each other and with others lmown 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 another person, in violation of Title 18, United States Cod; Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e). COUNT 25 (Facilitation of Unlawful Travel of Another: 18 U.S.C. § 2423(d)) 61. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though Eitily set forth herein. 62. From at least as early as in or about 2001 through in or around October 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the Defendant, SARAH KELLEN, did, for the purpose of commercial advAntage or private financial gain, arrange and facilitate the travel of a person, that is Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, knowing that such person was traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(d). COUNTS 26 THROkIJGH 29 (Travel to Engage in Illicit Sexual CA:induct: 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)) 63. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 64. On or about the dates enumerated as to each count listed below, from a place outside the Southern District of Florida to a place inside the SouttiOrh District of Florida, the 49 EFTA00225791

COUNT 23 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 57. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by I ;) referene'e-as though fully set forth herein. 58. From in or around August 2003 through in or around February 2004, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, • JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #18, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections / 2- 7? 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 24 (Conspiracy to Travel: 18 U.S.C. § 2423(e)) 59. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as fully set for the herein. ri 60. From at least as early as 2001 through in or around October 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, the Defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ADRIANA ROSS, a/111/..iana Mucinska," Ji. 48 EFTA00225792

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, SARAH a, a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska," and did use a-facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce or entice Jane Doe #16, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution and in a sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, that is a violation of Florida Statutes Section 794.05; in violation of Title 18, United StateW bode, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 22 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 55. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 56. From in or around February 2005 through in or around April 2005, the exact • • dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, , and , a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska," did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #17, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. 47 EFTA00225793

COUNT 20 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(h)) 51. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by referenee.ds though fully set forth herein. 52. From in or around December 2004 through on or about June 5, 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, iSS AHrli and a a "Adriana Mueinska," did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #15, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitutic, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 21 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 53. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 54. From in or around February 2005 through in or around the first week of October 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, 46 EFTA00225794

did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #13, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years',•to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 19 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 49. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 50. From in or around November 2004 through in or around March 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, SARAH and ADRIANAIROSS, a/k/a 51 did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #14, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution and in a sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, that is a violation of Florida Statutes Section 794.05; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. 45 EFTA00225795

COUNT 17 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. .§ 2422(b)) 45. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by referenee.ii though fully set forth herein. 46. From in or around the middle of 2004 through on or about April 22, 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #12, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1;; 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 18 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 47. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 48. From in or around August 2004 through on or about May 27, 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and 44 EFTA00225796

JEFFREY EPSTEIN and did use r‘frility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #9, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution and in a sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, that is a violation of Florida Statutes Section 794.05; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. Tro 1%. COUNT 16 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 43. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 44. From in or around July 2004 through on or about January 31, 2005, the exact dates being unknown to th6 Grand luriA in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, did use a facility or means of interstate commerpq, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #10, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. 43 EFTA00225797

18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 14 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 39. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 40. From in or around July 2004 through in or around October 2004, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere; the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Drile-#8, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 15 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) ri 41. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 42. From in or around July 2004 through on or around December 29, 2004, the exact dates being unlmovvn to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, 42 EFTA00225798

36. From in or around the spring of 2003 through on or about October 2, 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #3, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage imProstitution and in a sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, that is violations of Florida Statutes Sections 800.04(5)(a), 800.04(6)(a), and 800.04(7)(a); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 13 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 37. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 38. In or around July 2004, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #7, who was a person who had not attained the age of 41 EFTA00225799

COUNT 11 (Sex Trafficking: 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(2)) 33. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by referenelLag though fully set forth herein. 34. From at least as early as in or about 2001 through in or about October 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, ADRIANA ROSS, a/k/a "Adrian Mucinska," and NADIA MARCINKOVA, did knowingly benefit, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(3), which had engaged in an act described in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), that is, the recruiting, enticing, providing, and obtaining by any means a person, in or affecting interstate conunerce, knowing that the person or persons 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(cX1); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(2), 1591(b)(2), and 2. COUNT 12 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 35. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 40 EFTA00225800

Count Date(s) Minor Involved Defendant(s) 3 January 2004 through July 2004 Jane Doe #4 JEFFREY EPSTEIN 4 July 2004 through December 29, 2004 Jane Doe #9 JEFFREY EPSTEIN 5 July 2004 through January31, 2005 Jane Doe #10 JEFFREY EPSTEIN 6 M1442004 through April 22, 2005 Jane Doe #12 JEFFREY EPSTEIN SARAH KELLEN 7 August 2004 through May 27, 2005 Jane Doe #13 JEFFREY EPSTEIN 8 November 2004 through March 2005 Jane Doe #14 t:', ri JEFFREY EPSTEIN a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska" 9 December 2004 through June 5, 2005 Jane Doe #15 JEFFREY EPSTEIN SARAH a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska" 10 February 2005 through first week of October 2005 Jane Doe #16 JEFFREY EPSTEIN ADRIANA ROSS, a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska" --,-.. .- !_s' i All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2. Jf 39 EFTA00225801

Westchester County, New York to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. I 11 (225) On or about September 29, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, • a/k/a "Adriana Mucinslca," and NADIA MEN. traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. -LI: COUNTS 2 THROUGH 10 (Sex Trafficking: 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1)) 31. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 32. On or about the dates enumerated as to each count listed below, the exact dates / being unknown to the Grand Jury, iniPalm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the Defendants listed below did knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruit, entice, provide, and obtain by any means a person, that is, the person in each count listed below, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a conuneccial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1): Count Date(s) Minor Involved Defendant(s) 2 2001 - 2004 Jane Doe #2 JEFFREY EPSTI3IN 38 EFTA00225802

(219) On or about May 19, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, SARAH ICI3LLEN, and a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska," traveled from teieAboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (220) On or about June 30, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (221) Citi` or about July 22, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (222) On or about August 18, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ADRIANA ROSS, a/k/a "Adriliina Mucinska," and traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (223) On or about September 3, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and ADRIANA ROSS, a/k/a "Adriana Mucinskaf traveled from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (224) On or about September 18, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, SARAH KELLEN, and-, a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska," traveled from 37 EFTA00225803

MARCINKOVA traveledfrom New York, New York to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. (214) On or about February 21, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and traveled from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. (215) On or about February 24, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, SARAH ICELLEN, and traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (216) On or about March 4, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, !Ma, a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska," and NADIA MARCINKOVA traveled from New York, New York to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. (217) On or about March 18, 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN traveled from New York, New York to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. (218) On or about March 31, 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN traveled from New York, New York to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. 36 EFTA00225804

(208) On or about January 1, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, SARAH KELLEN, and NADIA MARCINKOVA traveled from Anguilla, British West Indies to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (209) On or about January 6, 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (210) On or about January 14, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, NMI a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska," and traveled from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. (211) On or about January 19, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, " and traveled from New York, New York to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. On or about February 3, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and NADIA MARCINKOVA traveled from Columbus, Ohio, to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. (213) On or about February 10, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, , ADRIANA ROSS, a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska," and NADIA 35 EFTA00225805

(202) On or about October 29, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and NADIA MARCINKOVA traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (203) On or about November 10, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (204) On or about November 18, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, SARAH KELLEN, a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska," and NADIA MARCINKOVA traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (205) On or about December 3, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, SARAH KELLEN, and ADRVANA ROSS, a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska," traveled from New York, New York to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. (206) On or about December 13, 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN traveled from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (207) On or about December 17, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and NADIA MARCINKOVA traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. 34 EFTA00225806

(196) On or about July 4, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, , and traveled from Aspen, Colorado to Palm each County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (197) On or about July 16, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, MI, and traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (198) On or about July 22, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, , and traveled from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. (199) On or about August 19, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and NADIA MARCINKOVA traNSed from Van Nuys, California to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. (200) On or about August 25, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and traveled from Ecuador to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. (201) On or about October 2, 2004,1fendants JEFFREY EPS MIN, SARAH KELLEN, and NADIA MARCINKOVA traveled from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. 33 EFTA00225807

(190) On or about March 5, 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN verbally reprimanded Jane Doe #18 for bringing Jane Doe #19 to 358 El Brillo Way when she was 'not willing to undress for him. The Defendants' Travel (191) On or about March 11, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, , and traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey, to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (192) On or about May 1, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, a, and NADIA MARCINKOVA traveled from New York, New York to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. (193) On or about 4, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and traveled from Canada to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. (194) On or about June 11, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and traveled from Chicago, Illinois to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (195) On or about June 20, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and NADIA MARCINKOVA traveled from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by JEGE, INC. 32 EFTA00225808

Jane Does #18 and #19 (182) In or around the last half of 2003, Jane Doe #18 was approached by A.F. atid iwas asked whether she would be willing to provide a massage to Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN in exchange for $200. (183) In or around the last half of 2003, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #18 to provide her telephone number. (184) On or around August 27, 2003, Defendant placed a telephone call-to .a telephone used by Jane Doe #18. (185) In or around the last half of 2003, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence ofJane Doe #18, who was then a seventeen-year-old-girl. (186) On or around November 16, 2003, Defendant NM= placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #18. (187) In or around the last half of 2003, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN digitally penetrated Jane Doe #18, who was then a seventeen-year-old-girl. (188) In or around the last half of 2003, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #18 to recruit other females to travel to 358 El Brillo Way. (189) On or about March 5, 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #19, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl, to leave when she refused to remove her shirt. 31 EFTA00225809

(174) On or about September 30, 2005, Defendant a/k/a "MMMI," placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (175) On or about October 1, 2005, Defendant SARAI-I left a telephone message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN stating: "[Jane Doe #15] confirmed at 11 AM and [Jane Doe #16] — 4PM". (176) On or about October 2, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (177) On or about October 3, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (178) On or about October 3, 2005, Defendant SARAH KELLEN left a telephone message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN stating: "[Jane Doe #16] will be `'A hour late". (179) In or around the first week of October, 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN engaged in sexual intercourse with Jane Doe #16, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (180) In or around the first week of October, 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $350.00 to Jane Doe #I6, who was then a seventeen- year-old girl. (181) In or around the first week of October, 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN provided a gift of eighteenth birthday. 30 Secret lingerie to Jane Doe #16 for her EFTA00225810

(164) On or about June 30, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (165) On or about July 2, 2005, Defendant SARAH KELLEN placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (166) On or about July 22, 2005, Defendant SARAH KELLEN placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (167) On or about August 18, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call-tla telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (168) On or about August 19, 2005, Defendant a/k/a ," placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (169) On or about August 21, 2005, Defendant NADIA MARCINKOVA placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. - (170) On or about September 3, 2005, Defendant a a/k/a " placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (171) On or about September 18, 2005, Defendant SARAH KELLEN placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (172) On or about September 19, 2005, Defendant sent a text message to a telephone used by Jane Doe #161 (173) On or about September 29, 2005, Defendant SARAH KELLEN placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. 29 EFTA00225811

(156) In or around the first nine months of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN placed a massaging device on the vagina of Jane Doe #16, who was then alseventeen-year-old girl. (157) In or around the first nine months of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #16, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl, how old she was, and she responded that she was seventeen years old. (158) In or around the first nine months of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN engaged-in sexual activity with Defendant EMMM in the presence of Jane Doe #16, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (159) In or around the first nine months of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #16, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl, to touch the breast of Defendant NADIA MARCINKOVA. (160) On or about April 11, 2005, Defendant a/k/a ," placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. lf (161) On or about April 11, 2005, Defendant telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. (162) On or about April 11, 2005, Defendant placed a left a message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN stating: "[Jane Doe #16] can work tomorrow at 4pm." (163) On or about May 19, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #16. 28 EFTA00225812

Jane Does #16 & #17 (149) In or around February 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN Masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #16, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (150) In or around the first quarter of 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and a caused Jane Doe #16 to place a telephone call to Jane Doe #17 to ask her to travel to 358 El Brillo Way. (151) In or around the first quarter of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN caused a payment to be made to Jane Doe #16 for recruiting Jane Doe #17 to travel to 358 El Brillo Way. (152) In or around the first quarter of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #17, who was then a sixteen-year-old girl. (153) In or around the'Arst quarter of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN instructed Jane Doe #17, who was then a sixteen-year-old girl, to remove all of her clothing. (154) In or around the first quarter of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN placed a massaging device on the vagina of Jane Doe #17, who was then a sixteen- year-old girl. (155) In or around the first quarter of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $200 to Jane Doe #17, who was then a sixteen-year-old girl. 27 EFTA00225813

(139) On or about February 4, 2005, Defendant SARAH KELLEN placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #15. (140) On or about February 10, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #15. (141) On or about February 21, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #15. (142) On or about February 24, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call.to.a telephone used by Jane Doc #15. (143) On or about March 17, 2005, Defendant SARAH KELLEN placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #15. (144) On or about March 30, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #15. (145) On or about March 31, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #15. (146) On or about March 31, 2005, Defendant a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska," placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #15. (147) On or about April 1, 2005, one of Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's employees prepared a note for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's review that read: "10:30 [Jane Doe #15]/[Jane Doe #10] on Fri around 2'Oclock". (148) In or around June 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN provided Jane Doe #15 with a gift of Secret lingerie for her eighteenth birthday. 26 EFTA00225814

(131) On or about March 29, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #14. Jane Doe #15 (132) On or about December 6, 2004, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #15. (133) On or about December 14, 2004, Defendant SARAH KELLEN placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #15. (134) In or- around the first half of 2005, Defendant led Jane Doe #15 from the kitchen of 358 El Brillo Way upstairs to Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's bedroom at 358 El Brillo Way. (135) In or around the first half of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN instructed Jane Doe #15, who teas then a seventeen-year-old girl, to pinch his nipples while he masturbated. (136) In or around the first half of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN fondled the breasts of Jane Doe #15. (137) In or around the first half of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $200 to Jane Doe #15, (138) On or about January 7, 2005, Defendant ," placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #15. 25 EFTA00225815

(122) In or around the first quarter of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN performed oral sex on Jane Doe #14, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (123) In or around the first quarter of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $600 to Jane Doe #14. (124) On or about January 8, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #14. (125) On or about January 9, 2005, Defendant Mucin§lca," placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #14. (126) On or about January 26, 2005, one of Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's employees prepared a written telephone message for Defendant review regarding a call received from Jane Doe #14 that read: "She is confirming for 5:30". (127) On or about January 26, 2005, Defendant a/k/a " placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #14. (128) On or about February 1, 2005, Defendant telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #14. (129) On or about March 1, 2005, Defendant placed a a/lc/a "Adriana Mucinska," placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #14. (130) On or about March 21, 2005, Defendant IIMMM," placed a telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #14. 24 EFTA00225816

(114) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN instructed Jane Doe #14, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl, to pinch his nipples. (115) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #14, who was then a seventeen-year old girl. (116) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $300 to Jane Doe #14. (117) 11.1.pr around the end of 2004 and the beginning of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN digitally penetrated Jane Doe #14, who was then a seventeen- year-old girl. (118) In or around the end of 2004 and the beginning of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #14, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl, whether she had any plans forilier eighteenth birthday and acknowledged that she had not yet turned eighteen. (119) On or about December 23, 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN caused a Western Union wire transfer order to be sent to Jane Doe #14. (120) In or around the first quarter-.of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN placed a massaging device on the vagina ofJane Doe #14, who was then a seventeen- year-old girl. (121) In or around the first quarter of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN engaged in sexual intercourse with Jane Doe #14, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. 23 EFTA00225817

(106) In or around the end of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN placed a massaging device on the vagina of Jane Doe #13, who was then a seventeen-year- olll (1 p7) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $200 to Jane Doe #13. (108) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN digitally penetrinfd Jane Doe #13, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (109) trioraround the lasthalf of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #13, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl, about her age. (110) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN told Jane Doe #13 that he wanted to take her to Paris but he could not because Jane Doe #13 was not yet eighteen yealts old. (111) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #13 to bring her friends to his home, especially "girls who looked like [Jane Doe #13]." Jane Doe #14 (112) In or around the last half or2004, Defendant led Jane Doe #14 from the kitchen of 358 El Brillo Way upstairs to Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's bedroom at 358 El Brillo Way. (113) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #14 to provide her telephone number. 22 EFTA00225818

(97) On or about August 21, 2004, Defendant SARAH KELLEN placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #13. V (98) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #12, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (99) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN digitally penetrated Jane Poe #12, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (100) htir around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN attempted to pitcce-tt massaging device on the vagina of Jane Doe #12, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (101) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $200 to Jane Doe #12. (102) In or around the‘t balf of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #12, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl, about her age. (103) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN told Jane Doe #12 that he would take her to Los Angeles when she turned eighteen. (104) In or around the last half of 2094, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and ri caused Jane Doe #12 0 -recruit Jane Doe #13 to travel to 358 El Brillo Way. (105) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #13, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. 21 EFTA00225819

Jane Doe #11 (91) In or around 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN told Jane Doc #11 at Ile would pay her to find and bring him more girls. • • (92) In or around 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid $200 to Jane Doe #11 for recruiting a minor female to travel to his New York home. (93) In or around 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #11 when she woulpe getting more girls. • (94) On`br about April 5, 2005, one of Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's employees prepared a written message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's review regarding a telephone call received from Jane Doe #11 that read: "Re does she have any new friends you can meet — I was away over the weekend so I have not spoken to anyone new. But, [unidenit'fied Jane Doe] will be around later today and I know she really wants to work. The others should be back around Thursday. Let me know about [unidentified Jane Doe]." (95) On or about June 22, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #11. Jane Does #12 Mid #13 (96) On or about August 2, 2004, an employee of Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN prepared a written telephone message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's review regarding a telephone call received from T.M. and Jane Doe #12 that stated: "They are available all weekend and maybe [Jane Doe #lp] too". 20 EFTA00225820

(83) On or about December 30, 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Ma caused the purchase of Broadway tickets as an eighteenth birthday gift for Jane Doe #9. (84) In or around the last half of 2004 or January 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #10, who was then a seventeen- year-old girl. (85) In-pr around the last half of 2004 or January 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN fondled'the breasts of Jane Doe #10, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (86) On or about January 14, 2005, Defendant SARAH KELLEN placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #10. (87) On or about JaReary 27, 2005, Defendant a/k/a ," placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #10. (88) On or about January 28, 2005, Defendant ME placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used-lay Jane Doe #10. (89) On or about February 1, 2005, Defendant placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #10. (90) In or around February 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN caused a payment of $200 to be made to Jane Doe #9 for recruiting Jane Doe #16 to travel to 358 El Brillo Way. 19 EFTA00225821

(75) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and NADIA MARCINKOVA engaged in oral sex and sexual intercourse in the presence of rano Doe #9, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (76) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN forcibly inserted his penis into the vagina of Jane Doe #9, who was then a seventeen- year-old girl. (77) h►.pr around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $300-to Jane Doe #9. (78) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN rubbed the vagina of Jane Doe #10, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (79) In or around the last halfof 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $200 to Jane Dsle #10. (80) On or about November 28, 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN arranged for one of his employees to provide an envelope filled with cash to Jane Doe #9. (81) On or about December 4, DIMS-Defendant a provided • a written message to Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN regarding Jane Does # 9 and 10, stating: "[Jane Doe #10] would like to work @ 4:00 pm if possible. [[Jane Doe #9] is scheduled for 5:00 today.] the movie is @ 7:30". (82) On or about December 29, 2004, Defendant SARAH KELLEN placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #9. 18 EFTA00225822

Jane Does #9 and #10 (66) On or about July 15, 2004, Defendant SARAH KELLEN placed one or more, telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane D.oe #9. (67) On or about July 16, 2004, Defendant SARAH KELLEN caused Jane Doe #9 to make one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #10. (68) On or about July 17, 2004, Defendant placed a telephone calLto.,a telephone used by Jane Doe #9. (69) On or about July 18, 2004, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #9. (70) On or about July 22, 2004, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #9. (71) In or around JufY 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN fondled the breasts of Jane Doe #9, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (72) In or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #9, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (73) In or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $200 to Jane Doe #9. (74) On or about July 22, 2004, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #10. 17 EFTA00225823

(58) On or about July 16, 2004, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by T.M. (59) On or about July 17, 2004, one of Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's employees prepared a written telephone message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's review regarding a telephone call received from T.M. that read: "Me & [Jane Doe #7] can come tomorrow any time or [T.M.] alone". (60) In.or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence otJane Doe #7, who was then a sixteen-year-old girl. (61) In or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN instructedJane Doe #7, who was then a sixteen-year-old girl, to rub his nipples. (62) In or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN stroked the vagina of Jane Doe #7, who y‘as then a sixteen-year-old girl. (63) In or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $200 to Jane Doe #7. (64) In or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN told Jane Doe #7 that if she reported to anyone what, had occurred at Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's home, bad things could happen to her. (65) On or about July 24, 2004, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #8. 16 EFTA00225824

(49) In or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #8, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. • (50) In or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN stroked the vagina of Jane Doe #8, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (51) In or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid approximately $200 to Jane Doe #8. (52) Irhor around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid $200 to T.M. for recruiting Jane Doe #8 to travel to 358 El Brillo Way. (53) In or around July 2004, Defendant a told Jane Doe #8 that Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN would pay Jane Doe #8 if she returned with a friend. (54) On or about Julf_15, 2004, Defendant SARAH KELLEN placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #7. (55) On or about July 15, 2004, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #8. (56) On or about July 15, 2004,‘ Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by T.M: (57) On or about July 16, 2004, Defendant =IM placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #7. 15 EFTA00225825

(42) In or around the first half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #6, who was then a sixteen-year-old girl. 11; (43) In or around the first half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN digitally penetrated Jane Doe #6, who was then a sixteen-year-old girl. (44) In or around the first half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN placed a large vibrating massager on the vagina of Jane Doe #6, who was then a sixteen-year-old.sirl. (45) hr or around the first half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN caused a payment of $200 to be paid to Jane Doe #6. Jane Does #7 and #8 (46) • In or around July 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN led T.M., who was then a fifteen-year-old gill;„and Jane Doe #7, who was then a sixteen-years-old girl, from the kitchen of 358 El Brillo Way upstairs to Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's bedroom at 358 El Brillo Way. (47) On or about July 4, 2004, Defendant SARAH KELLEN made one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by4pne Doe #7. (48) On or about July 5, 2004,-Defendant telephone call to a telephone used by T.M. 14 placed a EFTA00225826

(34) In or around the first half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #4, who was then a seventeen-year-old-girl, and Jane Doe #5, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (35) In or around the first half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN instructed Jane Doe #4, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl, to play with his nipples. (36) In‘or around the first half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN instructed Jane Doe #4, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl, to remove her clothing. (37) In or around the first half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN stroked the vagina of Jane Doe #4, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (38) In or around thcihrst half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid $200 to Jane Doc #4. (39) In or around the first half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid $200 to Jane Doe #5. (40) In or around the first half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #6 what high school she attended. (41) In or around the first half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN instructed Jane Doe #4 to leave so that Jane Doe #6 could massage him alone. 13 EFTA00225827

(28) In or around 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #3 to recruit additional females to come to 358 El Brillo Way. (29) On or about November 8, 2004, one of Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's employees prepared a written telephone message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's review regarding a telephone call received from Jane Doe #3 that read: "I have a female for him." (30) QA or about January 14, 2005, Defendant placed a telephone call-to a telephone used by Jane Doe #3. (31) On or about January 29, 2005, one of Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's employees prepared a written telephone message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's review regarding a telephone call received from Jane Doe #3 that read: "I have a female for him." Jane Does #4, #5, and #6 (32) In or around the first half of 2004, Defendant led Jane Doe #4 and Jane Doe #5 to Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's bedroom at 358 El Brillo Way. (33) In or around the first half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #4 about her age, and Jane Doe #4 responded with her true age. 12 EFTA00225828

(20) In or around 2003, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $200 to Jane Doe #3. (21) On or about October 26, 2004, Defendant SARAH KELLEN placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #3. (22) On or about October 30, 2004, Defendant SARAH KELLEN placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #3. (23) Impr around 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN directed Jane Doe #3, who was tlfen a sixteen- or seventeen-year-old girl, to straddle an adult female and to touch the adult female's breasts. (24) In or around 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN placed a massaging device on the vagina of an adult female in the presence of Jane Doe #3, who was then a sixteen- or seventeen-year-0d girl. (25) In or around 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $200 to Jane Doe #3. (26) In or around 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN instructed Jane Doe #3 to rub his nipples. (27) In or around 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN placed a massaging device on the vagina of Jane Doe #3, who was then a sixteen- or seventeen-year-old girl. 11 EFTA00225829

(12) In or around 2003, Defendant made a payment of $500 to Jane Doe #2 in exchange for posing for nude photographs. (13) In or around 2003, Defendant SARAH KELLEN told Jane Doe #2 that Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN had asked KELLEN to take nude photographs of Jane Doe #2. (14) In or around 2003, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane,Doe #2, who was then a sixteen-year-old girl. (15) In or around 2003, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $200 to Jane Doe #2, who was then a sixteen-year-old girl. (16) In or around 2003, Defendant I placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #2 to make an appointment for Jane Doe #2 to travel to 358 El Brillo Way. (17) On or about April 23, 2004, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #2. (18) On or about May 2, 2004, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane-Doe #2. Jane Doe (19) In or around 2003, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #3, who was then a fifteen-year-old girl. 10 EFTA00225830

(5) In or around 2001, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $300 to Jane Doe #2. (6) In or around 2001, Defendant INIME placed a telephone call to a telephone used by Jane Doe #2 to make an appointment for Jane Doe #2 to travel to 358 El Brillo Way. (7) In or around 2001, JEFFREY EPSTEIN engaged in sexual intercourse with an unidentified female in the presence of Jane Doe #2, who was then a fourteen- year-old girl. (8) In or around 2001, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid $300 to Jane Doe #2, who was then a fourteen-year-old girl, for allowing an unidentified female to perform oral sex on Jane Doe #2 in EPSTEIN's presence. (9) On or about Miireh 11, 2003, an employee of Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN prepared a written telephone message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's review regarding a telephone call received from Jane Doe #2. (10) In or around 2003, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #2 if she had any younger friends who would, be interested in engaging in similar activities with him. (11) In or around 2003, Defendant la took nude photographs of Jane Doe #2, who was then a sixteen-year-old girl. 9 EFTA00225831

bringing additional minor females to 358 El Brillo Way and the New York residence to engage in lewd conduct with Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN. (e) It was further a part of the conspiracy that Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN would pay minor females to engage in lewd conduct with Defendant NADIA MARCINK0VA to satisfy Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's prurient interests. Overt Acts 30. In furtherance of this conspiracy and to effect the objects thereof, there was committed by at leastoneof the co-conspirators herein, at least one of the following overt acts, among others, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere: Jane Does #1 and #2 (1) In or around the beginning of 2001, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN engaged in sexual activity wi4ane Doe #1, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl, in the presence of Jane Doe #2, who was then a fourteen-year-old girl. (2) In or around 2001, Defendant led Jane Doe #2 from the kitchen of 358 El Brillo Way upstairs to Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEEN's bedroom at 358 El Brillo Way. (3) In or around 2001, DefendantJEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated in the presence of Jane Doe #2, who was then a fourteen-year-old girl. (4) In or around 2001, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #2, who was then fourteen years' old, to.pinch his nipples while he masturbated. 8 EFTA00225832

Manner and Means 29. The manner and means by which the Defendants and other participants sought to accomplish the purpose and object of the conspiracy included the following: (a) It was part of the conspiracy that Defendants IMME, a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska," NADIA MARCINKOVA, and other participants would contact minor females via the use of cellular and other telephones to arrange appointments for minor females to travel to 358 El Brillo Way and the New York residence to allow Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN to engage in lewd conduct with them. (b) It was further a part of the conspiracy that Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, a, and a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska," and other participants would make payments to, or cause payments to be made to, minor females in exchangefor engaging in lewd conduct. (c) It was further a part of the conspiracy that Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Ma, a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska," and other participants would ask females to recruit other minor females to engage in lewd conduct with Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN. (d) It was further a part of the conspiracy that Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, a, a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska," and other participants would make payments to, or cause payments to be made to, the recruiters for 7 EFTA00225833

COUNT 1 (Conspiracy: 18 U.S.C. § 371) 26.., Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 27. From at least as early as 2001, the exact date being unknown to the Grand Jury, through in or around October 2005, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the Defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ADRIANA ROSS, a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska," and NADIA MARCINKOVA, did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate and agree with each other and with others known and unknown to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate dr foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, and entice individuals who had not attained the age of 18 years to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b). Purpose and Object of the Conspiracy 28. It was the purpose and object of the conspiracy to procure females under the age of 18 to travel to 358 El Brillo Way and the New York residence so that JEFFREY EPSTEIN could, in exchange for money, engage in lewd conduct with those minor females in order to satisfy JEFFREY EPSTEIN's prurient interests. 6 EFTA00225834

18. During the period of her involvement with the Defendants, Jane Doe #4 attended Wellington High School and Palm Beach Central High School in Palm Beach County: 19. During the period of her involvement with the Defendants, Jane Doe #5 attended Wellington High School in Palm Beach County. 20. During the period of their involvement with the Defendants, Jane Does # 6, 8 and 12 attended Palm, Beach Central High School in Palm Beach County. 21. During- the period of her involvement with the Defendants, Jane Doe #7 attended William T. Dwyer High School in Palm Beach County. 22. During the periods of their involvement with the Defendants, Jane Does # 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 attended Royal Palm Beach High School in Palm Beach County. 23. During the period ofiler involvement with the Defendants, Jane Doe #10 attended Lake Worth High School in Palm Beach County. 24. During the period of her involvement with the Defendants, Jane Doe #11 attended the Professional Performing Arts School, a public high school, located in New York, New York. 25. During the period of her involvernent with the Defendants, Jane Doe #13 attended John I. Leonard High School in Palm Beach County. 5 EFTA00225835

13. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 800.04(7)(a) and 800.04(7)(c), an adult "who: (1) [i]ntentionally masturbates; (2) [i]ntentionally exposes the genitals in a lewd or lascivions manner; or (3) [i]ntentionally commits any other sexual act that does not involve actual physical or sexual contact with the victim, including, but not limited to . . . the simulation of any act involving sexual activity in the presence of a victim who is less than 16 years of age, commits lewd or lascivious exhibition," which is a felony of the second degree. 14. Pursuafit to Florida Statutes Section 800.04(2), "[n]either the victim's lack of chastity nor the victim's consent is a defense to the crimes proscribed by [Section 800.04]." 15. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 800.04(3), "[t]he perpetrator's ignorance of the victim's age, the victim's misrepresentation of his or her age, or the perpetrator's bona fide belief of the victim's age cannoplbe raised as a defense in a prosecution under [Section 800.04]." 16. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 800.02, a "person who commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree." 17. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN wa-S over the age of 24 and did not have any medical license. 4 EFTA00225836

10. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 794.05, a "person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree." For purposes of "this section, `sexual activity' means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose." Florida Statutes Section 794.021 states that "ignorance of the age [of the victim] is no defense," and that neither "misrepresentation of age by [the victim].nor a bona fide belief that such person is over the specified age (shall] be a defense." 11. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 800.04(5)(a) and 800.04(5)(c)(2), an adult t ho intentionally touches in a lewd or lascivious manner the breasts, genitals, genital area, or buttocks, or the clothing covering them, of a person less than 16 years of age, or forces or entices a person under 16 years of agetio so touch the perpetrator, commits lewd or lascivious molestation," which is a felony of the second degree if the victim is 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age. 12. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 800.04(6)(a) and 800.04(6)(b), an adult "who [i]ntentionally touches a person under 16 yearA of age in a lewd or lascivious manner or [s]olicits a person under 16 years of age to commit a lewd or lascivious act commits lewd or lascivious conduct," which is a felony of the second degree. 3 EFTA00225837

2. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN employed L.G. to perform, among other things, services as a personal assistant. 4 1 ;Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN paid T.M., H.R., and A.F. to perform, among other things, recruiting services. 4. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN owned a property located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, in the Southern District of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "358 El Brillo Way"). 5. DefendtCSt JEFFREY EPSTEIN owned a property located at 9 East 71st Street, New York, New York (hereinafter referred to as "the New York residence"). 6. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN was the principal owner of JEGE, INC., a Delaware corporation. JEGE, INC.'s sole business activities related to the operation and ownership of a Boeing 727-31 aircrifthearing tail number N908J13. 7. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN served as president, sole director, and sole shareholder of JEGE, INC., and had the power to direct all of its operations. 8. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN was the principal owner of Hyperion Air, Inc., a Delaware corporation. Hyperion Air, Inc.'s solehusiness activities related to the operation and ownership of a Gulfstream G-1159B aircrafttearing tail number N909JE. 9. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN served as president, sole director, and sole shareholder of Hyperion Air, Inc., and had the power to direct all of its operations. i 2 EFTA00225838

*/z_qlog UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT O1? FLORIDA 21 Case No: 18 U.S.C. § 371 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1) 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(2) 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) 18 U.S.Q. § 2423(e) 18 U.S.C. § 2423(d) 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) UNITED STATES 4AMERICA 1 vs. FFREY EPSTEIN, and NAD A ARCINK , Defendants. INDICTMENT The Grand Jury charges that: BACKGROUND At all times relevant to this Indictment: 1. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN employed defendants a/k/a "Adriana Mucinska," and NADIA MARCINKOVA to perform, among other things, services as personal assistants. I! EFTA00225839

New Jane Doe # Old Jane Doe # DOB Range of activity dates Overt Acts Substantive Counts GJ Transcript Pages 13 13 May 1987 8/04 -5/05 96, 97, 104-111 7, 18 14 5 June 1987 11/04 - 3/05 .112-131 \iiitNi, 27 \ cAl, 5/22/07 NK Transcript pp. 4-13 15 3 June 1987 12/04 - 6/5/05 132-148, 175 27 3/20/07 NK Transcript pp. 4-22 5/15/07 NK Transcript m i. 3-17 Transcript pp. 23-25, 27-28 16 8 October 1987 2/05 - 10/05 \30, 149-151, 156- 181 x+10 '21, 27, 29 28, 5/22/07 NK Transcript pp. 39-47 17 9 April 1988 2/05 - 3/05 150-155 \.22 18 n/a February 1986 8/03 - 3/04 182-188, 190 23 19 n/a May 1986 3/04 189-190 n/a T.M. n/a July 1988 2003-2005 48, 52, 56; 58,.59 n/a 5/8/07 NK Transcript pp. 3-12 A.F. n/a n/a n/a 182 n/a Transcript pp. 5-13, 27 5/8/07 NK Transcript pp. 24-25 CONFIDENTIAL & PRIVILEGED 2 ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT EFTA00225840

4-12A/os OPERATION LEAP YEAR REVISED INDICTMENT SUMMARY CHART (by victitul New Jane Doe # Old Jane Doe # DOB Range of activity dates Overt Acts Substantive Counts GJ Transcript Pages 1 n/a August 1983 1998 - 2003 1 n/a 2 n/a January 1987 2001 to 2003 1-18 2 5/8/07 NK Transcript pp. 6-7 3 n/a October 1987 2003 19-31 12 4 n/a August 1986 2004 32-38, 41 3 5 n/a October 1986 2004 32, 34, 39 n/a 6 n/a June 1987 2004 40-45 n/a 7 12 April 1988 7/04 46, 47, 54, 57, 59-64 13, 26 8 n/a November 1986 7/04 - 11/04 49-53, 55, 65 14, 26 9 6 December 1986 7/04 - 12/04 66-73, 75-77, 80- 83, 90 4, 15, 26 5/22/07 NK Transcript pp. 16-27 10 7 February 1987 7/04 - 11/05 67, 74, 78-79, 81, 84-89, 147 5, 16, 26 5/22/07 NK Transcript pp. 25-37 11 n/a October 1986 2004-2005 91-95 n/a 12 14 April 1987 8/04 - 2/05 96, 98-104 6, 17 CONFIDENTIAL & PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT EFTA00225841

K. JANE DOE # 19 a H.) 1. Who is Jane Doe # 19? Have you testified about her previously? 2. Has she been interviewed? 3. During what period of time did Jane Doe # 19 have contact with JE? 4. How old was she during that time frame? 5. How did she meet JE? 6. And what sexual activity was she involved in with JET 7. How much was she paid? 8. Did she recruit anyone to go to JE's home? 9. Does your testimony cover the evidence supporting the allegations in overt acts 189-190? EFTA00225842

J. JANE DOE # 18 (a A.) 1. Who is Jane Doe # 18? Have you testified about her previously? 2. Has she been interviewed? 3. During what period of time did Jane Doe # 18 have contact with JE? 4. How old was she during that time frame? 5. How did she meet JE? 6. And what sexual activity was she involved in with JE? 7. How much was she paid? 8. Did she recruit anyone to go to JE's home? 9. Does your testimony cover the evidence supporting the allegations in overt acts 182-188, 190? 10. Let's refer to Count 23. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis for the allegation that JE, and SK used a facility of interstate commerce to persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe # 18 to engage in prostitution and in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with an offense? a. How many tele hone calls have you been able to document between Jane Doe # 18 and ? EFTA00225843

I. JANE DOE # 13 (Dainya N.) 1. Who is Jane Doe # 13? Have you testified about her previously? 2. Has she been interviewed? 3. During what period of time did Jane Doc # 13 have contact with JE? 4. How old was she during that time frame? 5. How did she meet YE? 6. And what sexual activity was she involved in with JE? 7. How much was she paid? 8. Did she recruit anyone to go to JEs home? 9. Does your testimony cover the evidence supporting the allegations in overt acts 96, 97, 104-111? 10. Let's refer to Count 07. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis for the allegation that JE, and SK procured Jane Doc # 13 to engage in commercial sex acts knowing that she was under 18? 11. Let's refer to Count 18. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis for the allegation that JE, and SK used a facility of interstate commerce to persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe # 13 to engage in prostitution and in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with an offense? a. How many telsl calls have you been able to document between Jane Doe # 13 and EFTA00225844

JANE DOE # 12 (a S.) I. Who is Jane Doe # 12? Have you testified about her previously? 2. Has she been interviewed? 3. During what period of time did Jane Doe # 12 have contact with JE? 4. How old was she during that time frame? 5. How did she meet JE? 6. And what sexual activity was she involved in with JE? 7. How much was she paid? 8. Did she recruit anyone to go to JE's home? 9. Does your testimony cover the evidence supporting the allegations in overt acts 96, 98-104? 10. Let's refer to Count 06. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis for the allegation that JE, and SK procured Jane Doe # 12 to engage in commercial sex acts knowing that she was under 18? 11. Let's refer to Count 17. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis for the allegation that JE, and SK used a facility of interstate commerce to persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe # 12 to engage in prostitution and in sexual activity • for which a person can be charged with an offense? a. How many telephone calls have you been able to document between Jane Doe # 12 and Kellen? EFTA00225845

G. JANE DOE # 8 a E.) 1. Who is Jane Doe # 8? Have you testified about her previously? 2. Has she been interviewed? 3. During what period of time did Jane Doe # 8 have contact with JE? 4. How old was she during that time frame? 5. How did she meet JE? 6. And what sexual activity was she involved in with JE? 7. How much was she paid? 8. Did she recruit anyone to go to JE's home? 9. Does your testimony cover the evidence supporting the allegations in overt acts 49-53, 55, 65? EFTA00225846

F. JANE DOE # 7 L.) 1. Who is Jane Doe # 7? Have you testified about her previously? 2. Has she been interviewed? 3. During what period of time did Jane Doe #1 have contact with JE? 4. How old was she during that time frame? 5. How did she meet JE? 6. And what sexual activity was she involved in with JE? 7. How much was she paid? 8. Did she recruit anyone to go to JE's home? 9. Does your testimony cover the evidence supporting the allegations in overt acts 46, 47, 54, 57, 59-64? 3, 10. Let's refer to Count N.Is the evidence you just summarized the basis for the allegation that JE and SK used a facility of interstate commerce to persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe # 7 to engage in prostitution and in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with an offense? How many telephone calls have you been able to document between Jane Doe # 7 and Kellen? 1. Dt: a -raki,, /1/44:1 ter vcc. Y1AA: Wirt- -ebt EFTA00225847

persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe # 16 to engage in prostitution and in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with an offense? a. How many to one calls have you been able to document between Jane Doe # 16 and Between Jane Doe # 16 and Ross? And between Jane Doe # 16 and ? 17. What was the sexual activity that Jane Doe # 16 and B3 engaged in that also violated Fl. Stat. 794.05? (Sexual intercourse between an adult over 24 and a minor) . 18. Does your prior testimony and your testimony today cover the evidence supporting the allegations and overt acts 150-155? 19. Lees refer to Count 22. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis for the allegation that JE and SK used a facility of interstate commerce to persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe # 17 to engage in prostitution and in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with an offense? EFTA00225848

E. JANE DOE # 16 (MI D.) and JANE DOE # 17 a D.) 1. Who is Jane Doe # 16? Have you testified about her previously? a. Is there anything that you want to clarify or add regarding your earlier testimony? 2. Please remind the grand jury, during what period of time did Jane Doe # 16 have contact with JE? 3. How old was she during that time frame? 4. Please summarize the sexual activity that Jane Doe # 16 was involved in with JE? 5. Did Jane Doe # 16 recruit anyone to go to JE's home? JANE DOE # 17 a D.) 6. Who is Jane Doe # 17? Have you testified about her previously? 7. Has she been interviewed? 8. During what period of time did Jane Doe # 17 have contact with JET 9. How old was she during that time frame? 10. How did she meet JE? 11. And what sexual activity was she involved in with JE? 12. How much was she paid? 13. Did she recruit anyone to go to JE's home? JANE DOE 16 ( D.) and JANE DOE # 17 (- D.) 14. Does your prior testimony and your testimony today cover the evidence supporting the allegations and overt acts 90, 149-151 and 156-181? 15. Let's refer to Count 10. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis for the allegation that 3E, SK, AR and NM procured Jane Doe # 16 to engage in commercial sex acts knowing that she was under 18? 16. Let's refer to Count 21. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis for the allegation that JE, SK, AR and NM used a facility of interstate commerce to EFTA00225849

B. Now, with respect to each of those girls, can you summarize for the grand jury your efforts to independently corroborate their statements? What physical evidence corroborates their statements to law enforcement? Page 11 of 11 EFTA00225850

a. Is there anything that you want to clarify or add regarding your earlier testimony? 2. Please remind the grand jury, during what period of time did Jane Doe #16 have contact with JE? 3. How old was she during that time frame? 4. Please summarize the sexual activity that Jane Doe #16 was involved in with JE? 5. Does your prior testimony and your testimony today cover the evidence supporting the allegations in overt acts 90, 149-151, and 156-181? 6. Let's refer to Count 10. Is the evidence ou just summarized the basis for the allegation that JE, SK, and a procured Jane Doe #16 to engage in commercial sex acts knowing that she was under 18? 7. Let's refer to Count 21. Is the evidence ou ust summarized the basis for the allegation that JE,. SK, and a used a facility of interstate commerce to persuade, induce, and entice Jane Doe #16 to engage in prostitution and in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with an offense? a. How many telephone calls have you been able to document between Jane Doe #16 and Kellen? Between Jane Doe #16 and Ross? And between Jane Doe #16 and a? 8. What was the sexual activity that Jane Doe #16 and JE engaged in that also violated Fl. Stat. 794.05? [Sexual intercourse between an adult over 24 and a minor] IX. PRIOR DRUG USE/MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES A. Today we have discussed 11 victims — Jane Does 1 through 6, 9, 10, and 14 through 16. Are you aware of whether any of them have used illicit drugs or have had mental health issues? Please summarize. Page 10 of 11 EFTA00225851

a. How old was Jane Doe #14 during this period? And what is the sexual activity that she and JE engaged in that also violated El. Stat. 794.05? [Sexual intercourse btwn adult over 24 and a minor.] D. JANE DOE #15 (ME Z.) 1. Who is Jane Doe #15? Have you testified about her previously? a. Is there anything that you want to clarify or add regarding your earlier testimony? 2. Please remind the grand jury, during what period of time did Jane Doe #15 have contact with JE? 3. How old was she during that time frame? 4. Please summarize the sexual activity that she was involved in with JE? 5. Does your prior testimony and testimony here today cover the evidence supporting the allegations in overt acts 132-148, 175? 6. Let's refer to Count 9. Is the evidence ou 'list summarized the basis for the allegation that JE, SIC, and procured Jane Doe #15 to engage in commercial sex acts owing at she was under 18? 7. Let's refer to Count 20. Is the evidence ou just summarized the basis for the allegation that JE, SK, and used a facility of interstate commerce to persua e, m uce, an entice Jane Doe #15 to engage in prostitution? How many telephone calls have you been able to document between Jane Doe #15 andn And how many telephone calls between Jane Doe #15 and oss E. JANE DOE #16 MI D.) 1. Who is Jane Doe #16? Have you testified about her previously? Page 9 of 11 EFTA00225852

document between Jane Doe #10 and a? VIII. OTHER BACKGROUND INFO A. Background re defendants and intro section — February 6, 2007 NK Transcript and May 8, 2007 NK Transcript pp. 17-end. B. ASK ABOUT ITEMS TO BE BROUGHT FOR FINAL PRESENTATION - MASSAGE BEDS!!! C. JANE DOE #14 t E.) 1. Who is Jane Doe #14? Have you testified about her previously? a. Is there anything that you want to clarify or add regarding your earlier testimony? 2. Please remind the grand jury, during what period of time did Jane Doe #14 have contact with JE? 3. How old was she during that time frame? 4. Please summarize the sexual activity that Jane Doe #14 was involved in with JE? 5. Does your prior testimony and your testimony today cover the evidence supporting the allegations in overt acts 112-131? 6. Let's refer to Count 8, Is the evidence you just summarized the basis for the allegation that JE and SK procured Jane Doe #14 to engage in commercial sex acts knowing that she was under 18? 7. Let's refer to Count 19. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis for the allegation that JE and SK used a facility of interstate commerce to persuade, induce, and entice Jane Doe #14 to engage in prostitution and in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with an offense? How many telephone calls have you been able to document between Jane Doe Nand ICellen? Page 8 of 11 EFTA00225853

commercial sex acts knowing that she was under 18? 7. Let's refer to Count 15. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis for the allegation that JE and SK used a facility of interstate commerce to persuade, induce, and entice Jane Doe #9 to engage in prostitution and in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with an offense? How many telephone calls have you been able to document between Jane Doe #9 and M? 8. What was the activity for which a person could be charged with an offense [Vaginal intercourse between an adult over 24 and a 16 or 17 year old minor — violates Pl. Stat. 794.05] B. JANE DOE #10 (a B.) 1. Who is Jane Doe #10? Have you testified about her previously? a. Is there anything that you want to clarify or add regarding your earlier testimony? 2. Please remind the grand jury, during what period of time did Jane Doe #10 have contact with JE? 3. How old was she during that time frame? 4. Please summarize the sexual activity that Jane Doe #10 was involved in with JE? 5. Does your prior testimony and your testimony today cover the evidence supporting the allegations in overt acts 67, 74, 78-79, 81, 84-89, 147? 6. Let's refer to Count 5. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis for the allegation that JE and SK procured Jane Doe #10 to engage in commercial sex acts knowing that she was under 18? 7. Let's refer to Count 16. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis for the allegation that JE and SK used a facility of interstate commerce to persuade, induce, and entice Jane Doe #10 to engage in prostitution? How many telephone calls have you been able to Page 7 of I1 EFTA00225854

I. Does your testimony cover the evidence supporting the allegations in overt acts 3245? J. Let's refer to Count 3. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis for the allegation that JE and SK procured Jane Doe #4 to engage in commercial sex acts knowing that she was under 18? K. Let's refer to Count 13. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis for the allegation that JE and SK used a facility of interstate commerce to persuade, induce, and entice Jane Doe #4 to engage in prostitution? VII. TESTIMONY REGARDING GIRLS ALREADY COVERED IN GRAND JURY — JANE DOES 9, 10, 14, 15, 16 (Alex, i, , and Ashley) A. JANE DOE #9 (Alex H.) 1. Who is Jane Doe #9? Have you testified about her previously? a. Is there anything that you want to clarify or add regarding your earlier testimony? 2. Please remind the grand jury, during what period of time did Jane Doe #9 have contact with JE? 3. How old was she during that time frame? 4. And please summarize the sexual activity that Jane Doe #9 was involved in with JE? a. Was she involved in sexual activity with any of the other defendants? 5. Does your prior testimony and your testimony today cover the evidence supporting the allegations in overt acts 66-73, 75-77, 80-83, and 90? 6. Let's refer to Count 4. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis for the allegation that JE and SK procured Jane Doe #9 to engage in Page 6 of 11 EFTA00225855

JE's recruiting requests? Were there girls whom Jane Doe #3 brought to Epstein's home whom he didn't like? Did he allow them to massage him? I. Did he ever become frustrated when JD#3 wasn't able to find a young girl for him? J. Does your testimony cover the evidence supporting the allegations in overt acts 19 through 31? K. Let's refer to Count 12. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis for the allegation that JE and SK used a facility of interstate commerce to persuade, induce, and entice Jane Doe #3 to engage in prostitution and in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense? [Florida violations — Jane Doe #3 was under the age of 16 when she was involved with Epstein, so he could be charged with lewd and lascivious molestation, lewd and lascivious conduct, and lewd and lascivious exhibition based upon his touching of Jane Doe #3's breasts and genitals, his solicitation of Jane Doe #3 to commit a lewd and lascivious act, and his masturbation and exposure of his genitals in her presence.] VI. JANE DOES #4, 5, and 6 H., C., and a P.) A. Who are Jane Does #4, 5, and 6? Have you testified about them previously? B. Have they been interviewed? In addition to their statements, who else provided information regarding Jane Does #4, 5, and 6? C. During what period of time did Jane Does #4, 5, and 6 have contact with JE? D. How old were they during that time frame? E. What sexual activity did Jane Does #4 and #5 engage in with JE? F. Did either of them take anyone else to JE's home? G. What sexual activity was Jane Doe #6 involved in with JE? H. Did she take anyone else to JE's home? Page 5 of 11 EFTA00225856

4. How did she meet JE? 5. And what sexual activity was she involved in with JE? 6. How much was she paid for performing sexual massages for JE? 7. Did she recruit any of the other Jane Does to go to JE's home? 8. Please take us through the evidence supporting the overt acts related to Jane Doe #2. 9. What did Jane Doe #2 say about whether JE knew her age? 10. Who would contact Jane Doe #2 to make appointments? How would she be contacted? 11. Does your testimony cover the evidence supporting the allegations in overt acts 1 through 18? 12. Let's refer to Count 2. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis for the allegation that JE and SK procured Jane Doe #2 to engage in commercial sex acts knowing that she was under 18? JANE DOE #3 (IMI W.) A. Who is Jane Doe #3? Have you testified about her previously? B. Has she been interviewed? C. During what period of time did Jane Doe #3 have contact with JE? D. How old was she during that time frame? E. How did she meet JE? F. And what sexual activity was she involved in with JE? G. How much was she paid? H. Did she recruit anyone to go to JE's home? What did she tell you about Page 4 of 11 EFTA00225857

2. Remind the grand jury how the telephone records were obtained and whose telephone records were obtained. Were there any records that you tried to obtain that you couldn't? 3. Have you pulled the telephone records that contain the telephone calls referred to in the indictment? And did you bring them with you? Have you marked in any way the telephone bills that reference the calls listed in the indictment? And in reviewing those billing records, what information will the grand juror's find? (Telephone number called. Time and date of call. Call length.) . TAKE A BREAK BEGIN TESTIMONY REGARDING THE GIRLS IV. JANE DOES 1 and 2 A. Who is Jane Doe #1? 1. Has she been interviewed? In addition to her statements, who else provided information regarding Jane Doe #1? 2. During what period of time did Jane Doe #1 haye contact with JE? 3. How old was she during that time frame? 4. How did she meet TO 5. And what sexual activity was she involved in with JE? 6. Did she recruit anyone to go to JE's home? B. Who is Jane Doe #2? 1. Has she been interviewed? In addition to her statements, who else provided information regarding Jane Doe #2? 2. During what period of time did Jane Doe #2 have contact with JE? 3. How old was she during that time frame? Page 3 .of 11 EFTA00225858

first known contact with Mr. Epstein) b. S/A Kuyrkendall: Which of these girls has the grand jury already heard testimony about? 2. • Go over how chart is organized a. S/A Kuyrkendall• What does each column refer to? 3. Generally review references to transcript pages a. S/A Kuyrkendall: What does the list of transcript pages refer to? How was that•list created? B. Go through the allegations in the Introductory Section of the Indictment. Summarize evidence that hasn't already been presented (I think just the high school allegations) C. Hand out flight chart 1. What does this chart refer to? What does each column mean? 2. Flip to a few overt acts and read the text aloud. What is the evidence in support of these allegations? (Flight manifests) 3. Remind the grand jury how the flight manifests were obtained. 4. So, for each flight referenced in the overt acts, what evidence was relied upon? And did you bring those flight manifests with you? Let's mark those manifests as Composite Grand Jury Exhibit Number JE-1. There are several dozen manifests contained within Exhibit JE-1. Have you marked in any way the manifests related to the flights referenced in the indictment? And in reviewing those manifests, what information will the grand jurors find? [Airplane used. Date. Departure airport. Arrival airport. Arrival time. Passenger names.] D. Discuss telephone records 1. Flip to a few overt acts and read the text aloud. What is the evidence in support of these allegations? (Telephone records) Page 2 of 11 EFTA00225859

9-- GRAND JURY PRESENTATION 0 742 . OPERATION LEAP YEAR L INTRODUCTION I Q - 1 2 / A. New Indictment 1. Summarize Changes 2. Summarize Current Charges 3. Review Law/Instructions 4. Go through legal allegations in introduction B. Summarize How the Evidence Will Be Presented 1. Chart 2. Break Overt Acts into Two Categories: a. Meetings/Sexual Activity — Grouped by victim — Testimony re Interviews with the Girls b. Plights — Manifests C. Take Questions D. Call Special Agent Kuyrkendall IL RETURN DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO SUBPOENAS ISSUED SINCE THE LAST DOCUMENT RETURN. A. Have additional subpoenas been issued on behalf of this grand jury regarding Operation Leap Year? And have documents been received in response to those subpoenas? What subpoenas were issued and what items were received? Did you bring those records with you today? KUYRKENDALL SUBSTANTIVE TESTIMONY A. Hand out summary chart 1. Review renumbering of Jane Does a. S/A Kuyrkendall: Can you explain to the grand jury how the Jane Does have been renumbered? (They were numbered to try to appear in a more chronological order depending on their Page 1 of 11 EXHIBIT B-29 EFTA00225860

• Page 49 nonexistent. Moreover, federal statutes that focus on sexual activity with minors focus on truly interstate phenomena such as child pornography, human trafficking, Internet luring, and sex tourism. Here, Mr. Epstein engaged in local activity that does not implicate any broader federal concern. Mr. Epstein faces punishment for that conduct under Florida law. There is no need to add additional federal penalties grossly disproportionate to his alleged behavior. F. The Petite Policy Dictates Federal Declination of This Case. In conclusion, we believe that the Petite Policy clearly dictates a federal declination in this case for the following reasons: First, the Petite Policy (which the federal prosecutors have acknowledged is applicable here) was triggered by the initial plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, which was not executed solely because of the pending federal investigation. Second, there is no evidence of corruption, undue influence, or incompetence by the State's Attorney's Office. Third, the presumed bar to a dual prosecution has clearly not been overcome. Fourth, there was no coordination with State prosecutors, which led to confusion of the issues and a flawed and overreaching Deferred Prosecution Agreement. • EFTA00225861

• • 0 Page 48 evidence. But Ms. Belohlavek later informed Mr. Epstein's counsel that solicitation of minor is not a registerable offense and that § 796.03 ' a procurement statute that has no application to Mr. Epstein whatsoever. See e.g., Register State, 715 So.2d 274, 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) ( ("The Florida Legislature has designated suc an act of solicitation as a less severe crime than exploiting a minor to engage in sexual activity with a third party, to the procurer's financial advantage'). It is obvious from federal prosecutors' first documented plea proposal that 'solicitation of a minor' is and always has been the appropriate charge under the facts (this is also the State's recommended charge). What is now apparent is that federal prosecutors believed that solicitation of a minor was both a felony and registerable charge under Florida law. They were wrong. Had federal prosecutors coordinated with State authorities, they would (presumably) not have fallen into this manifest legal error.22 In addition, federal prosecutors insisted that they dictate every detail of the State sentence pursuant to the Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Once again, this was done without any coordination with the State. Federal prosecutors went so far as to demand a restriction on the judge not to be able to offer probation, community control or any other alternative that the judge might order in lieu of incarceration. See Executed Deferred Prosecution Agreement, 12(a), Exhibit 33. This is classic overreaching violative of the Petite Policy's imperatives. Not satisfied with simply dictating the terms and conditions of Mr. Epstein's incarceration, federal prosecutors then attempted to send a highly inaccurate Victim Notification Letter to their list of alleged victims of federal crimes (all except three of whom had no connection to the State prosecution) and encouraged them not only to attend the State plea and sentencing proceeding but to make public statements against Mr. Epstein before the judge. See Victim Notification Letter, Exhibit 37. Yet again, this was also done without consulting the State Attorney's Office. We understand that that Office was not given the identities of these alleged victims and had no idea that federal prosecutors intended to send such letters to these individuals. E. Traditional Elements Of Proper Prosecutorial Discretion Do Not Favor Prosecution Here. Even assuming that the Department could bring charges, it should decline as a matter of prosecutorial discretion. The relevant factors are set forth in Section 9-27.230 of the United States Attorney's Manual, and those factors counsel against prosecution. Mr. Epstein has no criminal history of any kind. Given the unique nature of any prosecution (which would be unprecedented as a federal matter), any general deterrent effect is likely to be minimal or 22 Furthermore, in the Victim Notification Letter that she intended to send to all the alleged federal victims, Ms. Villafana erroneously stated that under Deferred Prosecution Agreement, Mr. Epstein would have to register as "sexual predator" as opposed a "sexual offender" for the remainder of his life. See Victim Notification Letter, Exhibit 37. That is not true—under the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, Mr. Epstein need only register as a sexual offender, a classification that is far less grave than that of a sexual predator and which carries far less onerous conditions. Sec Executed Deferred Prosecution Agreement, Exhibit 33. EFTA00225862

• Page 47 • • important in this instance as federal prosecutors and State prosecutors clearly have a different view of the merits of this case. However, there was no such consultation by federal prosecutors with their State counterparts. Federal prosecutors never contacted the State Attorney's Office, let alone attempted to coordinate efforts, despite the fact that the State prosecutors have over a decade of experience in prosecuting State matters and sex related crimes in particular.21 Federal prosecutors ignored Ms. Belohlavek's view of the case, despite the fact that she interviewed many of the witnesses in connection with the State investigation. Because of a lack of communication by federal prosecutors, the State Attorney's Office was left to accept the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, which contained overreaching conditions including a mandatory period of incarceration and sex offender registration. Without a single meeting or phone call with State prosecutors and without ever sharing with them the evidence that would justify such an action, federal prosecutors insisted that the State accept that the charges be raised and the sentence enhanced. It is telling that the failure by the federal prosecutors to coordinate with the State Attorney's Office led to confusion of the issues as well misrepresentations regarding the Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Under the agreement, which was drafted without consultation by federal prosecutors with the State Attorney's Office, Mr. Epstein was to plead guilty to an indictment charging one count of solicitation of prostitution under Florida Statute § 796.07, and to one count of procuring a minor for prostitution under Florida Statute § 796.03. Given the commercial nature of the conduct generally associated with § 796.03, a defendant convicted under this statute must register as a sexual offender under Florida's Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (the "Florida's Sex Act"). However, Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct did not actually meet the requirements of § 796.03, a charge for which federal prosecutors had no facts to support. Since inception and at the time § 796.03 was negotiated between the parties, Ms. Villafana erroneously maintained that a § 796.03 charge involved the solicitation—and not the procurement—of a minor. See July 31, 2007 Draft Deferred Prosecution Agreement, Exhibit 36 ("solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. 796.3 . . .'). During those negotiations, Mr. Epstein's counsel repeatedly asked Ms. Villafana to confirm that she possessed the requisite evidence to make out a this charge, to which she unwaveringly replied that she did in fact possess this 21 Federal prosecutors went to such great lengths to avoid coordinating with the State that they even asked Mr. Epstein's counsel to provide them all of the documentation provided to the State, including the transcripts of each witnesses' testimony. In addition, rather than consult with the State Attorney's Office directly, federal prosecutors effectively conscripted Mr. Epstein and his counsel to convince the State to agree to both a harsher charge and sentence in connection with its proposed plea agreement, both of which the State believes may not necessarily apply to Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct. EFTA00225863

• Page 46 • • his right to challenge any of the allegations of these alleged victims, restricting his right of discovery to a single question: "have you ever met Mr. Epstein?".20 At bottom, certain federal prosecutors disagree with minor aspects of the deal made by duly-authorized State prosecutors. But federal prosecution is manifestly not appropriate whenever reasonable minds disagree about a specific punishment. Rather, the plain text of the Petite Policy requires that there be a demonstrable, manifest, and substantial difference between State and federal outcomes in order to justify a successive federal prosecution. That is, textually, a daunting standard. If Mr. Epstein's sentence is manifestly inadequate and leaves the federal interests in prosecuting solicitation demonstrably unvindicated, then so does every other sentence handed out by the State on similar facts. Indeed, the conduct here can be compared to that of Barry Kutun, a former North Miami city attorney accused of having sex with underage prostitutes and videotaping the sessions. Mr. Kutun pleaded guilty on May 18, 2007 in a Miami- Dade County courtroom as part of an agreement with State prosecutors, and he received five years probation and a withhold of adjudication with no requirement to register as a sex offender. It is unclear why federal prosecutors—who declined to federally prosecute Mr. Kutun despite the fact that his conduct is more egregious than that of Mr. Epstein—believe that State prosecutors' treatment of Mr. Epstein alone somehow leaves the federal interest substantially unvindicated. Given the number of sexual crime cases prosecuted in Palm Beach County, either the Department ought to declare the State Attorney's Office in federal receivership--or it should acknowledge that Mr. Epstein is being treated differently from other similar offenders. C. The Conduct At Issue Does Not Constitute A Federal Offense. The Petite Policy requires that the government believe that the defendant's conduct constitute a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction by an unbiased trier of fact. But a federal conviction is unlikely as a matter of both law and fact. As a matter of law, the identified federal statutes do not apply for reasons detailed above. See supra at part II. As a matter of fact, the sworn testimony of the witnesses in this has case has definitively refuted any basis for a federal conviction. D. Federal Prosecutors Did Not Coordinate With The State. Quite apart from its substantive prerequisites, the Petite Policy also requires coordination with State authorities. See U.S.A.M. § 9-2.031A ("federal prosecutors should, as soon as possible, consult with their state counterparts to detennine the most appropriate single forum in which to proceed to satisfy the substantial federal and state interests involved, and, if possible, to resolve all criminal liability for the acts in question.") Such consultation is particularly 20 This despite the fact that the state restitution statute, like the state prostitution statute, fully covers the conduct alleged and provides a well-established method for civil recovery. EFTA00225864

• Page 45 examined case should not warrant sex offender registration. State prosecutors carefully assessed this case, including personally interviewing many of these witnesses, and they carefully considered Mr. Epstein's background and mitigating factors—most notably, that Mr. Epstein did not use coercion, alcohol, drugs, or violence; that Mr. Epstein held no position of authority in connection with these girls; and that Mr. Epstein passed a lie detector test and psychosexual evaluation. The State sentence thus reflected sound prosecutorial judgment, and was well- grounded in the entire circumstances of the case and the treatment of similar first-time offenders. • • In short, given the local conduct at issue, and the reasoned judgment of State prosecutors that State sex-offender registration was not necessary, there was no basis for suggesting that the absence of State sex-offender registration demonstrably failed to vindicate federal interests. Not only was this articulation for the need for registration a violation of the Petite Policy, it was a clear violation of well-settled law mandating that registration cannot be used as a form of punishment. Kansas' Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 362 (1997); Johnson' State, 795 So.2d 82, 87 (Fla. App. 5th Dist. 2000) ("Analogous to the cited Federal cases, the legislative intent of the Florida Sexual Offender notification and registration requirement is not intended to be punitive, but is designed to be remedial in nature..."). Nor can federal prosecutors' concern for compensating victims justify their intent on prosecuting Mr. Epstein federally. Once federal prosecutors made clear that a primary goal of the federal investigation was a federal compensation proposal, the defense submitted one that consisted of terms harsher than Mr. Epstein's conduct warranted under prior federal precedents. In addition to the well-established state restitution statute, the defense offered a federal proposal that was similar to the resolution in the Boehm case, where the conduct was far more egregious. There, the defendant bought and distributed crack cocaine and cocaine to underage girls; admitted to knowing that the girls were underage; arranged for them to have sex with other members of the conspiracy in exchange for drugs; and possessed illegal firearms at the time of the alleged conduct. The defense proposal was open-ended with no monetary cap. But the federal prosecutors also ruled that out. Instead, federal prosecutors pressured Mr. Epstein to agree to provisions in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement that seem to have been designed to provide financial benefits to alleged victims who cannot qualify under Section 2255, because they testified that they did not suffer any type of harm, nor could they be victims of violations of Sections 2422(b) or 2423 (a prerequisite for recovery under Section 2255). Notably, federal prosecutors made the unprecedented demand that Mr. Epstein pay a minimum of $150,000 to an unnamed list of women they referred to as minors—Mr. Epstein's counsel later established that all but one of these individuals were actually adults, not minors. Those same prosecutors also demanded that Mr. Epstein pay the attorneys' fees for these alleged victims should they choose to bring any further civil litigation against him. They further demanded that Mr. Epstein waive EFTA00225865

• Page 44 case involving the murder of a federal official." U.S.A.M. § 9-2.031D. To put it mildly, that egregious example is a far cry from the situation at hand. Instead, the federal prosecutors' disagreement with the State's plea agreement boils down to a dispute over where Mr. Epstein initially would be incarcerated: The State believed that a longer sentence of supervised custody (which is a more onerous form of house arrest) and the potential for a longer sentence of imprisonment is adequate punishment for Mr. Epstein, while federal prosecutors insisted on a shorter period of traditional imprisonment and no supervised custody. There was no objective basis for believing that either of those punishments was demonstrably better or worse than the other. And the suggestion that the proposed State plea agreement was "manifestly inadequate" simply because the State Attorney's Office and federal prosecutors disagree about the location and manner in which Mr. Epstein would be confined both undermines Petite's strong presumption against successive prosecutions and is inconsistent with the Policy's requirement that a prospective federal prosecution offer the availability of a "substantially enhanced sentence." In short, the specific location of a defendant's confinement— particularly one who is not an ongoing danger to the community under the conditions of the proposed State agreement—does not concern any federal interest, let alone a substantial one. As a result, it provided no basis for pursuing a successive federal prosecution.19 The remaining points of disagreement between federal prosecutors and their State counterparts likewise are too insignificant (or, indeed, irrelevant) to support a successive federal prosecution in this matter. For instance, while federal prosecutors have expressed concern that the State plea agreement does not require Mr. Epstein to register as a sex offender in Florida, that is not an appropriate consideration under Petite. After all, the Policy focuses on the prospect of obtaining "substantially enhanced" forms of punishment in order to vindicate federal interests, and given that the federal government does not itself require "Johns" to register as federal sex offenders, it is hard to see how State-law sex-offender registration can fairly be characterized as necessary to vindicate a federal interest—much less how its absence leaves the federal interest "demonstrably unvindicated." Instead, federal prosecutors have told defense counsel that the only reason for their insistence that Mr. Epstein register as a sex offender in Florida is to "give the FBI a bone" for its work on the federal investigation. Needless to say, that is not an adequate justification for initiating a successive prosecution under Petite. Moreover, State prosecutors appropriately exercised their judgment, based on years of experience, in determining that the evidence and the entire circumstances of this closely- • • 19 In rejecting the State's proposal and demanding incarceration in lieu of supervised custody one federal prosecutor disparagingly noted that house arrest in Mr. Epstein's case would amount to what would be seen by the public as "mansion arrest". Such reasoning had no bearing on the Petite analysis and clearly violated Mr. Acosta's stated policy of horizontal equality. Treating Mr. Epstein differently from any other similarly charged individual simply because of his wealth directly contravenes this policy. EFTA00225866

• Page 43 Moreover, although the actual sentence agreed with the State Attorney's Office was less than the maximum available to the State, the Petite Policy indicates that this should not be a relevant consideration. Petite does not ask federal prosecutors to compare the sentence achieved in a prior State prosecution (here, two years of supervised custody with a possibility of two years' imprisonment) against what they hope to achieve in a successive federal prosecution (here, eighteen months of guaranteed imprisonment). Instead, it focuses on whether federal law makes "available" certain forms of punishment that were not "available" in the prior State proceedings—like "forfeiture and restitution," rather than mere "imprisonment and fines." U.S.A.M. § 9-2.031D ("The presumption may be overcome even when a conviction was achieved in the prior prosecution . . . if the prior sentence was manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest involved and a substantially enhanced sentence . . . is available through the contemplated federal prosecution.") (emphasis added). As a result, the key inquiry under Petite is not whether federal prosecutors conceivably could do better, it is whether they can require the defendant to serve a sentence that was not even "available" to State prosecutors. Id. In this case, however, Mr. Menchel has not asked for anything that State prosecutors could not have obtained. The fact that State authorities chose—for unquestionably legitimate reasons—not to seek that particular sentence does not change the fact that the sentence was available to the State and rejected in its discretion. Therefore, Petite's presumption that the State of Florida's prior prosecution of Mr. Epstein has vindicated the federal interest cannot be said to have been overcome. • • Second, the State's proposed plea agreement was in no sense "manifestly inadequate" under U.S.A.M. § 9-2.031D. The gap between the conditions contained in the proposed agreement and federal prosecutors' proposal was so narrow that it cannot reasonably be understood as inadequate, let alone "manifestly inadequate". That federal prosecutors apparently believed that the purported federal interest could not be vindicated by anything less than a two- year jail term fails to satisfy any objective reading of the Petite Policy.I8 Properly interpreted, that Policy does not permit federal prosecution whenever prosecutors believe they might better vindicate the federal interest or whenever prosecutors consider the State sentence merely inadequate. Instead, the Policy requires that the federal interest be "demonstrably unvindicated" by the prior State prosecution; that the State sentence be "manifestly inadequate" to vindicate the federal interest; and that the successive federal prosecution offer a "substantially enhanced sentence." And Petite then makes clear that those words have real meaning by providing a telling example of an inadequate State process: "a state prosecution for assault and battery in a Mr. Goldberger. In short, it is hard to imagine how the recusal of an assistant to the lead prosecutor could have resulted in any advantage to Mr. Epstein; more to the point, no such advantage was sought and none was obtained. IS Federal prosecutors' demand for a two-year jail term was subsequently reduced to an I8 month jail term as reflected in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement. The difference between this sentence and the state plea agreement is even narrower. EFTA00225867

• Page 42 • • a much smaller list—a list that still has not been disclosed to either the State Attorney's Office or Mt Epstein's counsel. The landscape was dramatically changed yet again as a result of several alleged victims on the government's list each filing a $50 million dollar lawsuit against Mr. Epstein. Each publicly now stating they had lied about their ages , and knew nothing about any sex activity whatsoever before they arrived. See Herman Public Statement, Exhibit 16. The initial discovery precipitated by this lawsuit undeniably su rted Mr. Epstein's continued assertions that the women lied to him about their ages. See Tr. (Deposition) at 37, Exhibit 3. These recent facts, along with other new evidence con rms that the conduct in question was purely local and should be treated as such. These facts have been obtained under a State discovery statute and it was over vigorous objection of the federal prosecutors. The federal prosecutors, while clearly acknowledging that this matter fell within the ambit of the Petite Policy, continued to assert, without substantiation, that the proposed State plea agreement failed to vindicate the federal interest. On August 3, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Menchel rejected the State's new proposed plea agreement. He flatly stated that "the federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two year term of state imprisonment." See August 3, 2007 letter from M. Menchel, Exhibit 35.16 This letter openly acknowledged that the Petite Policy applied to this matter, and also highlighted the steps federal prosecutors were taking in order to circumvent its restrictions. Mr. Menchel's articulation of the purported federal interest misrepresents the Petite Policy on two grounds. First, Mr. Menchel's position that the federal interest could not be vindicated in the absence of a jail term for Mr. Epstein is contrary to Section 9-2.031D of the United States Attorney's Manual. This section requires the federal prosecutor to focus exclusively on the quality or process of the prior prosecution. The Policy expressly states that the prosecutor should not focus on the sentencing outcome unless there are indicia of impropriety by the State prosecutors. See id. ("the Department will presume that a prior prosecution, regardless of the result, has vindicated the relevant federal interest.") (emphasis added). As stated above, there are no indicia that the quality or process of the State prosecution was affected by "incompetence, corruption, intimidation, or undue influence," and thus, vindication of the federal interest must be presumed, regardless of the type of sentence.17 16 As stated above, federal prosecutors also acknowledged the application of the Petite Policy in drafts of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement. See e.g., September 17, 2007 email from M. Villafana to J. Leflcowitz attaching draft Deferred Prosecution Agreement, Exhibit 32. 17 While federal prosecutors once suggested that Mr. Epstein's retention of Jack Goldberger was intended to trigger the recusal of assistant prosecutor Dahlia Weiss and thereby influence the outcome of the State prosecution, that assertion is frivolous. Mr. Goldberger was retained by Gerald Lefcourt after Mr. Epstein already had been indicted by the Grand Jury. Mr. Lefcourt had never heard the name Dahlia Weiss when he hired Mr. Goldberger, and had no idea that Mr. Goldberger's law partner was married to a sex-crimes prosecutor—much less that that fact would trigger Ms. Weiss's recusal. And Ms. Belohbvek—not Ms. Weiss—remained in charge of the State's prosecution of Mr. Epstein before, during, and after the retention of (Continued...) EFTA00225868

• Page 41 • • In reaching this determination, State prosecutors took great care in abiding by the policy of "horizontal equality," a policy United States Attorney Acosta also has stated dictates his prosecutorial decisions. Under this policy, the State determined that Mr. Epstein should be charged or given a punishment of no less or no more than anyone else under the same facts. The only reason the plea agreement was not filed with the court was the unexpected initiation of the federal investigation. Nevertheless, the Petite Policy was triggered once the State Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein came to an agreement on the terms of the State plea. Despite the pending resolution between State prosecutors and Mr. Epstein, in early August 2007, after a year of conducting their own investigation with cooperation from the FBI, federal prosecutors began discussing their own proposal to defer prosecution to the State with Mr. Epstein's counsel. During these discussions, federal prosecutors represented to Mr. Epstein's counsel that they had identified up to forty alleged "victims" of federal crimes that qualified for inclusion under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, a civil remedy, and that they intended to federally prosecute Mr. Epstein unless he and his counsel, not the federal government, sought more stringent conditions to the State's proposed plea agreement, including a two-year term of incarceration and a more severe charge. Despite the awkward an unprecedented position in which this placed Mr. Epstein—namely, to be forced to have his counsel request that the State impose harsher penalties than the State itself believed were warranted—he attempted to comply with federal prosecutors' request and came to a new agreement with the State Attorney's Office. The new agreement provided for two years of supervised custody (including various other strict conditions), followed by two years of incarceration, which may have been rescinded upon successful completion of the supervised custody portion of the sentence. See August 2, 2007 letter to M. Menchel, Exhibit 34. Under this agreement, if Mr. Epstein failed to comply with the terms of the supervised custody, incarceration would commence immediately. Upon completion of his sentence, Mr. Epstein would thus serve two additional years of reporting probation (which also included mandatory and special conditions). Indeed, if anything, the sentence provided for by the State plea agreement went too far. Proposed as a result of the federal demand, that sentence was considerably harsher than others meted out to first-time offenders convicted of similar conduct in Palm Beach County. In fact, the State Attorney's Office had never before prosecuted a case involving this type of conduct as a felony, unless the victim was exceedingly young, especially vulnerable, or in a trust relationship with the perpetrator—facts plainly not present here. Moreover, supervised State custody (and its intrusive monitoring conditions) is not the norm for first-time offenders. And it is highly questionable whether the harsh conditions of Mr. Epstein's State plea agreement should have been proposed at all. Over the course of negotiations with federal prosecutors, counsel for Mr. Epstein learned that the United States Attorney's Office, despite trumpeting newly-learned facts resulting from the federal investigation, had included on their list of "victims," who could in no way qualify, either as a result of their own testimony or by statute. See Tr. at 21, Exhibit 2. Indeed, after numerous discussions with federal prosecutors over several months, it became evident that the federal prosecutors had EFTA00225869

• Page 40 • • As a threshold matter, there is no evidence that the State's prosecution of Mr. Epstein was in any manner tainted by corruption, incompetence, or undue influence. Barry Krischer, the deeply respected Palm Beach County State Attorney, has served in that office, elected, reelected, and reelected yet again, for 12 years. Lana Belohlavek, the lead State prosecutor in this matter, is a career prosecutor who has over a decade of experience prosecuting sex-related crimes and was a founding member of the Child Abuse Protocol, which establishes operational procedures for the investigation of child abuse reports in Florida. These highly respected State prosecutors responsible for this case are seasoned professionals, and they devoted significant time and vast resources to this case. They oversaw an extensive 15-month State investigation by State authorities, and brought their case to a successful conclusion by securing a felony indictment of Mr. Epstein and reaching a strict plea agreement that included terms the State has never previously imposed on a first-time offender like Mr. Epstein. There is no indication whatsoever that the State prosecution somehow left any federal interest demonstrably unvindicated. Following its own rigorous investigation into the allegations against Mr. Epstein, the State Attorney's Office carefully considered the evidence. That evidence included a s cho-sexual evaluation, lie detector test results showing that Mr. Epstein believed that , one of the two alleged victims, was over 18, and MySpace pages proving that Ms. regularly falsely represented her age to the general public as at least 18. Ms. Belohlavek also found the testimony of one of the main witnesses interviewed by the police incredible. Indeed, it was Mr. Epstein's counsel—not the police—that brought to the attention of the State prosecutors the key fact that one of the key witnesses had been arrested for drug possession and was in the midst of negotiating a reduction of that charge at the time she gave her statement to police regarding Mr. Epstein. The State Attorney's Office decided to put its wi e test by convening a grand jury. Subpoenas were issued and the case was presented. Hall, a key witness, refused to appear. The State grand jury returned an indictment o one count of solicitation of a prostitute. After months of contentious negotiation and following the grand jury indictment, a State plea agreement was agreed to by the State Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein. The sentence available to the State was a maximum five-year term of incarceration and a restitution fund specifically tailored to prostitution. See Fl. Stat §§ 796.07 and 775.082. The State fully considered the facts of this case and determined that incarceration should be held in abeyance. The factors the State considered in making this determination were: (i) Mr. Epstein had no prior criminal record; (ii) each encounter with the women in question was consensual; (iii) strong evidence that the women admitted to lying about their ages; (iv) Ms. Belohlavek, who interviewed some of the witnesses herself, stated that given their lack of credibility and the fact that they clearly were seeking money from Mr. Epstein, they were "hardly victims" and she believed it would border on the unethical to use them as witnesses; and (t this case was, according to Ms. Belohlavek's own words, a typical "sex for money case," the type for which the State historically did not require jail time. EFTA00225870

• Page 39 girls in his home. The conduct herein was not what Congress had in mind when it broadened the relevant federal statutes to include ten year minimum sentences for federal sex-related crimes (namely, faceless predators hiding their identities in Cyberspace while preying on children). Moreover, this case does not implicate the important national prosecutorial priority in favor of protecting minors that has heretofore animated the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section— specifically, crimes involving Internet luring; sex trafficking of minors; profiting from prostitution as a commercial enterprise with the use of some element of force or violence in connection with prostitution; international sex trafficking; transportation of minors for the purposes of prostitution; or interstate distribution of child pornography. The conduct in question has been accurately characterized by a d jury as solicitation of prostitution, a quintessential State law concern. See United States Evans, 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007) (federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)"). And as the Department has recognized, in instances of prostitution where the "John" is the defendant, states are more than well equipped to handle these cases: See November 9, 2007 DOJ letter to the Judiciary, at 8-9, Exhibit 15. B. The State Prosecution Has Left No Federal Interest Demonstrably Unvindicated. • • Petite permits a successive federal prosecution only where the prior state prosecution leaves a substantial federal interest "demonstrably unvindicated," U.S.A.M. § -9-2.031A, (emphasis added), and further compels the Department to presume that a prior State prosecution has vindicated the relevant federal interest. Id. § 9-2.031D ("[T]he Department will presume that a prior prosecution, regardless of the result, has vindicated the relevant federal interest.") (emphasis added). That presumption controls except in certain narrow circumstances, like when the prior State prosecution was tainted by corruption or incompetence, or where the Department finds both that the prior state sentence is "manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest," and that "a substantially enhanced sentence—including forfeiture and restitution as well as imprisonment and fines—is available through the contemplated federal prosecution." Id. (emphasis added)." None of these conditions have been met. 15 The Petite Policy also provides that the presumption may be overcome "in those rare cases where three conditions are met: fast, the alleged violation involves a compelling federal interest, particularly one implicating an enduring national priority; second, the alleged violation involves egregious conduct, including that which threatens or causes loss of life, severe economic or physical harm, or the impairment of the functioning of an agency of the federal government or the due administration of justice; and third, the result in the prior prosecution was manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest involved." U.S.A.M. § 9- 2.0310. As discussed in text, this case involves local conduct that does not implicate a compelling federal interest, and the state result is not "manifestly inadequate." EFTA00225871

• Page 38 offense, and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction by an unbiased trier of fact.... U.S.A.M. § 9-2.031A. Even if these prerequisites are satisfied, however, the Department retains substantial discretion to decline prosecution. As the Policy explains, "[s]atisfaction of the three substantive prerequisites does not mean that a proposed prosecution must be approved or brought. Even then, the traditional elements of federal prosecutorial discretion continue to apply." Id. Finally, the Policy underscores that successive State and federal prosecutions are supposed to be rare, by requiring federal prosecutors "as soon as possible" to "consult with their state counterparts to determine the most appropriate single forum in which to proceed." Id. None of Petite's "three substantive prerequisites" were satisfied here, and the Department further failed to satisfy Petite's requirement that it coordinate its prospective enforcement efforts with State prosecutors in order to establish a "single forum" in which to proceed. In fact, in Mr. Epstein's case, no consultation or coordination has ever taken place. A. There Is No Substantial Federal Interest In This Case. • The Petite Policy requires that the matter involve a substantial federal interest. That threshold is not met in this case. Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct was wholly local. It was neither interstate nor international. Each alleged act took place in his Palm Beach home. All the women alleging sexual misconduct resided in Florida (indeed, in Palm Beach County) at all relevant times. By their own admissions, none traveled across State lines for the purpose or intention of engaging in illicit sexual behavior. In addition, only a deeply attenuated nexus exists between the conduct alleged and interstate instrumentalities. Mr. Epstein neither used the statutorily defined means to induce a known minor into illegal sexual activity; nor did he travel to Palm Beach for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity. See supra at part II.C. A federal prosecutor's broadly defined federal interest of protecting children from exploitation does not constitute a proper ground for discerning a substantial federal interest with the facts at hand. With two exceptions, those facts demonstrate that all of the women involved in this case were at least 16 years old at the time of the alleged conduct, and that is the effective age of consent for federa ses.I4 There i Mr. Epstein was aware that either of the other two girls Gonzales and was underage. Ms. has openly acknowledged that she lied to Mr. Epstein a ut er age, and other girls ave tes ified that Ms. told them to lie about their ages because Mr. Epstein did not want underage 14 18 U.S.C. §2243(a) (the agc of consent in the federal maritime and territorial jurisdiction is 16). In 39 States and the District of Columbia, the age of consent is 16 or younger. See W. Eskridge & N. Hunter, Sexuality, Gender, and the Law 1021.1022 (1997). • EFTA00225872

• • • Page 37 Manual ("U.S.A.M."), and establishes strict prerequisites that must be met before federal prosecutors may pursue a successive federal prosecution based on conduct already addressed by a State or local prosecution. Significantly, the Policy does not merely set forth internal Executive guidance; rather, it reflects a longstanding principle under which "Congress expressly has provided" that "a state judgment of conviction, plea agreement, or acquittal on the merits shall be a bar to any subsequent federal prosecution for the same act or acts." U.S.A.M. § 9- 2.031 A (emphasis added). The purpose of this Policy is "to vindicate substantial federal interest through appropriate federal prosecutions, to protect persons charged with criminal conduct from the burdens associated with multiple prosecutions and punishments for substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s)." Id. To that end, Petite "establishes guidelines for the exercise of discretion by appropriate officers of the Department of Justice in determining whether to bring a federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) involved in a prior state or federal proceeding." Id. There is no dispute that the Policy applies here. The State of Florida and Palm Beach County already prosecuted Mr. Epstein for sexual misconduct and agreed to a plea, thereby triggering Petite. In drafts of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, federal prosecutors openly acknowledged the application of the Policy. A draft of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement stated: "after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background, that the interest of the United States pursuant to the Petite policy will be served by the following procedure [contained in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement)." See e.g., September 17, 2007 email from M. Villafana to J. Lefkowitz attaching draft Deferred Prosecution Agreement, Exhibit 32. The draft agreement further stated: "Epstein understands that it is his obligation to undertake discussion with the State Attorney's Office to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States' interest pursuant to the Petite Policy." Id. However, after Mr. Epstein's counsel conveyed to the prosecutors the fact that they had appeared to ignore the prerequisites of Petite references to the Policy were inexplicably removed from the final draft of the agreement after weeks of acknowledgement that the Petite issue was an important consideration for federal prosecution and resolution of this case. See Executed Deferred Prosecution Agreement, Exhibit 33. When asked why the Petite references were removed, Ms. Villafana stated flatly, "it is none of your concern." Federal prosecutors undoubtedly feared that a subsequent federal prosecution of this matter failed to clear the substantive hurdles set forth under Petite. The "three substantive prerequisites" are as follows: [Flirst, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, the prior prosecution must have left that interest demonstrably unvindicated; and third, applying the same test that is applicable to all federal prosecutions, the government must believe that the defendant's conduct constitutes a federal EFTA00225873

• Page 36 purpose of engaging in intercourse, penetration, or skin-to-skin touching with someone under the age of 16. Moreover, Section 2423(g) makes it an affirmative defense if Mr. Epstein reasonably believed, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the women involved were at least 16 years old. As discussed earlier, sworn testimony shows that Mr. Epstein reasonably believed the women involved were at least 18 years old. The inapplicability of Section 2423(b) is confirmed by its legislative history and prosecutorial practice. Section 2423(b) is part of the Mann Act, which was originally enacted in 1910 to prevent the transportation of women and girls across State lines for immoral purposes. See 36 Stat. 825 (1910). That portion of the Mann Act is now codified at Section 2423(a). In 1994, Congress added Section 2423(6) to address the increasing problem of international sex tourism. See Pub. L. 103-322, § 160001(gX2). Thus, Sections 2423(a) and (b) together address those persons who transport minors across State lines, or who themselves travel across State lines, in order to engage in unlawful sexual activity. Again, Mr. Epstein traveled to Palm Beach because he had a residence there; any sexual activity was merely incidental. Consistent with Congress's focus on sex tourism, federal prosecutors have never used Section 2423(b) in this way. We have identified 177 prosecutions under Section 2423(b),13 and all of them are readily distinguishable. In 129 prosecutions, the defendant's primary purpose of travel was to engage in sexual activity with a minor. The vast bulk of those cases were sting operations in which the defendant was arrested either while traveling to or upon arriving at the hotel where he and the minor had specifically prearranged a meeting prior to travel for the sole purpose of having sexual intercourse. In 26 prosecutions, the defendant either traveled with the minor across the State lines, or intended for (and provided the means for) the minor to travel across State lines for sex. In the remaining 22 prosecutions, the defendant traveled or planned to travel internationally in order to engage in sexual activity with a minor. As with the other statutes, that is a far cry from what allegedly occurred in this case. Third, receiving massages even topless massages is not a criminal objective. Section 2423(b) requires that the travel be for "illicit sexual conduct" i.e. conduct that was not the norm and was not expected by Epstein to be a consequence of any specific scheduled massage during any interstate travel, conduct that was not a causative factor in his regular returns to Palm Beach. • • III. PETITE POLICY The Department of Justice's Petite Policy ("Petite," or the "Policy") precludes federal prosecution in this matter. Petite establishes a baseline of a single prosecution for any given conduct, akin to the principles of double jeopardy. It is codified in the United States Attorney 13 We identified a total of 203 prosecutions under § 2423(b), but 26 of those case opinions fail to provide any information as to the facts underlying the charges. EFTA00225874

• Page 35 • • As with § 2422(b), § 2423 requires that there be a concurrence of (a) interstate travel for (b) the purpose of having illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2246, with a minor. Mr. Epstein's routine of traveling to and from Palm Beach—to or from his home—for purposes f other than illicit sex take this case outside of the paradigm of prior 2423(b rosecutions, see the Table of § 2423 Cases, ixhibit 30, and make this case more like Hansen Half, 291 U.S. 559 (1934), and Mortensen United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). In Hansen, the Supreme Court rejected charges against a woman traveling back to her home in the United States to "continue her irregular and improper conduct," concluding that "her entry [into the United States] cannot be said to be with the purpose `only that she might live in a state of concubinage."' 291 U.S. at 562. And in Mortensen, the Court likewise held that two women who took a trip from their home, returned home, and then resumed their illegal prostitution business did not violate federal law—explaining that "[t]he return journey under the circumstances of this case cannot be considered apart from its integral relation with the innocent round hip as a whole. There is no evidence of any change in the purpose of the trip during its course." 322 U.S. at 375. As in Mortensen, Mr. Epstein would fly from Palm Beach with the intention, documented by his regular practice as reflected in flight logs provided to the United States Attorney's Office, to return home. Those regular trips were motivated by a myriad of ordinary motives: family, medical, social, business, and a common love of the area and his long-owned home. To the extent that upon arriving home he "resumed [his] immoral practices," like Mortensen defendants, id at 375, this resumption "does not, standing alone, operate to inject a retroactive illegal purpose into the return trip to [Palm Beach]." Id. Mr. Epstein's commission of State offenses at his residence in Palm Beach is indistinguishable from the facts in Mortensen and well outside the demands of federal law Vat an interstate trip be significantly motivated or have as its "important purpose," United States I. Hoschouer, 2007 WL 979931 (11th Cir. 2007), an illegal sex act with a person known to be a minor. Second, there was no intent to engage in "illicit sexual conduct" under the statute. Section 2423(f) defines "illicit sexual conduct" as any sexual act set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 2246 that would be in violation of Chapter 109A of the United States Code.12 Section 2246 sets forth vaginal, oral, and anal intercourse; genital or anal penetration; and genital touching of a minor that does not occur through clothing, while Chapter 109A defines a minor as a person under the age of 16. Here, there was no intent to engage in "illicit sexual conduct" at the time Mr. Epstein was traveling to Florida. Thus, even if, once in Florida, Mr. Epstein purposefully engaged in a proscribed act under the statute, which he did not, that purpose arose long after his travel to Florida was complete, while a particular massage with a particular masseuse was in progress. Indeed, there is no evidence that Mr. Epstein had knowledge that he would see anyone at all once he arrived in Palm Beach, let alone knowledge that he would see any person for the specific 12 Section 2423(f) also defines "illicit sexual conduct" with reference to 18 U.S.C. § 1591, but that statute in turn refers to 18 U.S.C. § 2246. EFTA00225875

• Page 34 States, 322 U.S. 369, 374 (1944) (intention to engage in proscribed conduct must "exist before the conclusion of the interstate journey and rust be the dominant motive of such interstate movement.") (emphasis added); United States Hoschouer, 224 Fed. Appx. 923, 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming jury instruction that "the Government must show that the Defendant's criminal purpose was not merely incidental to the travel"); id. at 927 ("By requiring that the jury find that Defendant's illicit sexual conduct was more than 'merely incidental' to his purpose in traveling..., the district court effectively required that Defendant's illicit purpose be an important purpose of the travel.") (emphasis added); United States t Tylcarsky, 446 F.3d 458, 471 (3d Cir. 2006) ("[T)he relationship between the mens rea and e actus reus required by § 2423(b) is neither incidental nor tangential. § 2423(b) does not simply prohibit traveling with an immoral thought, or even with an amorphous intent to engage in sexual activity with a minor in another state."). Instead, Mr. Epstein spent at least 100 days a year in Palm Beach for family purposes, business purposes, and social purposes, and to maintain a home that he has owned in Palm Beach since 1991—more than a decade before the incidents giving rise to this investigation. In fact, Mr. Epstein's longstanding ties to the Palm Beach community led him to establish a residence there nearly 20 years ago. While in Palm Beach, he routinely visits family members and close friends, has seen his primary care physician for checkups and prescribed tests in the Palm Beach area, and until her death in May of 2004, regularly saw his mother who was hospitalized and then convalesced in south Florida. Any massages he may have received in Palm Beach were entirely incidental to these regular trips home. Flight records previously provided to the United States Attorney's Office show that in 2003, Mr. Epstein traveled to and from his Palm Beach home on 31 occasions, and spent 29 multi-day weekends at the residence. In 2004, Mr. Epstein traveled to and from his Palm Beach home on 37 occasions, 36 of which included a multi-day weekend stay. In the first 9 months of 2005 the pattern continued: 24 multi-day trips to Palm Beach including 21 multi-day stays over weekends. From 2003 through 2005 there was no month when Mr. Epstein did not spend at least one weekend in Palm Beach. In fact, the Palm Beach area is the home base for his flight operations, for maintenance of his aircraft, and for periodic FAA inspections. Additionally, Mr. Epstein's pilots and engineers all resided in Florida. Mr. Epstein's gun license, until recently, was a Florida license. He has given generously to charities in Florida. He has met business associates at his Palm Beach residence. • In short, the evidence is indisputable that Palm Beach was where Mr. Epstein spent most of his discretionary time, and that his travels to Palm Beach were trips returning to his home— not the escapades of a sex tourist off to some destination inextricably intertwined with the significant or dominant purpose of having "illicit sexual conduct." Epstein's trips to Palm Beach were simply those of a business person traveling home for weekends or stopping over on his way to or from New York and St. Thomas. • EFTA00225876

• Page 33 • • Conversely, Mr. Epstein was not involved in any kind of human trafficking, enslavement or commercial prostitution enterprise. We have attached sworn testimony that shows that Mr. Epstein solicited, received, and paid for massages which included, on some occasions, consensual sexual touching from local women in his Palm Beach home. Some of these women were under 18 at the time of the conduct, but they systematically lied to Mr. Epstein about their age. These facts are nothing like any of the prior cases in which the Department has initiated a § 1591 prosecution. At bottom, Mr. Epstein's conduct was purely local; it did not involve "trafficking of women or children in the sex industry" and was not part of a phenomenon that, in the aggregate, had an economic impact on interstate or foreign commerce. Extending the statute to local customers who seek prostitution services, even on a regular basis, would collide with the limits imposed by Evans, by the history of a statute that is premised on the Thirteenth Amendment, by the statute's placement in Chapter 77 of the Title 18 (titled 'Peonage, Slavery, and Trafficking in Persons"), and by the Department's own representations that prostitution is properly reserved for State and local prosecution absent its featuring commercial sex trafficking of children. Mr. Epstein simply is not a "trafficker" by any stretch of language, policy or imagination. Therefore, prosecution under § 1591 should not be authorized. It has never before been approved on facts like this, and no reported precedent encompasses Epstein's conduct within the ambit of a viable § 1591 prosecution. See Table of § 1591 Cases, Exhibit 29. C. 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) Section 2423(b) criminalizes domestic and international sex tourism. It reads as follows: 18 U.S.C. § 2423. Transportation of minors (b) Travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct—A person who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. (Emphasis added.) Section 2423(b) thus provides up to 30 years of imprisonment for anyone who travels across State lines (i) for the purpose of engaging in (ii) illicit sexual conduct with a minor. Neither of those elements is satisfied here. Mr. Epstein did not travel to Palm Beach for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity with a minor, and whatever sexual activity did occur was not "illicit sexual conduct" within the meaning of the statute. First, Mr. Epstein's trips to Palm Beach were not undertaken "for the purpose of engaging" in sexual activity, much less for the purpose of engaging in "illicit sexual conduct." To the contrary, the prospect that Mr. Epstein might engage in sexual activity in Florid was not the dominant motive—or even a significant motive—for his travel. See Mortensen I United EFTA00225877

• Page 32 Federal prosecutors have never used § 1591 in a case involving facts like these. We have identified 21 prosecutions under § 1591," and all of them have involved international sex trafficking; for-profit prostitution rings, usually involving minors and fo ible coercion; or forcible rape or physical abuse and intimidation. See, e.g., United States Norris, 188 Fed. Appx. 822, 2006 WL 1889654 (11th Cir. 2006) (prosecution of several men for conspiracy to hold young women in eonage, and to traffic them for commercial sex acts, involving force and threats); United States Sims, 161 Fed. Appx. 849, 2006 WL 14581 (11th Cir. 2006) (defendant picked up young woman, transported her over State lines, ordered her to prostitute herself, and took money from her). • • Moreover, in the cases enforcing the statute, the victim is typically 14 and under. See Table of § 1591 Cases, Exhibit 29. Therefore, witnesses under 18 years old in this case are not the "children" in respect of whom trafficking cases have historically been enforced. With two has given multiple sworn statements ' 1 sex act occurred (and thill ' s, all such witnesses were 16 years old or over. Of the two exceptions, one, lied to Mr. Epstein about her age). The other, , who has a history of criminal misconduct and drug addiction, has sought to co ec monetary remuneration from Mr. Epstein in a civil suit and her era,' ' ' ' 'tied beyond any reasonable reliance. Importantly, other girls have testified that Ms. told them to lie about their ages ecause Mr. Epstein did not want underage girls in s ome. This strongly suggests that Ms. herself lied to Mr. Epstein about her own age. It is little wonder, then, that the courts have made clear that § 1591 simply is not intended to cover the kind of alleged conduct at issue here. Thus, as the Eleventh Circuit has explained, "Section 1591 does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)." Rather, its reach is limited to sex traffi ing that involves children or is I accomplished by force, fraud, coercion." United States Evans, 476 F.3d 1176, 1179 n.1 i (2007); see also United States Sims, 161 Fed. Appx. 84 , 2006 WL 14581 at *3 (11th Cir. 2006) (to "establish Sims's guil on the sex trafficking of a minor count, the government had to show that Sims benefited financially from Owen's sexual activity and that Sims knew that (a) force or coercion would be used to cause Owens to engage in a criminal sex act or (b) that Owens was under the age of 18." (emphasis added). The Eleventh Circuit's interpretation of the statute makes perfect sense: were § 1591 not limited in that fashion, it would threaten to criminalize a host of localized behavior that has nothing to do with human trafficking. In these respects, Mr. Epstein's case hardly could differ more from the typical § 1591 case, like Evans—where a stereotypical pimp enticed an AIDS-inflicted 14 year-old into prostitution for commercial purposes and essentially held her in bondage. 476 F.3d at 1176-78. 11 We identified a total of 25 prosecutions under § 1591, but 4 of those case opinions fail to provide any information as to the facts underlying the charges. EFTA00225878

• • • Page 31 that Congress was addressing the evils of human trafficking by targeting Johns. Instead, the clear Congressional focus was on traffickers—that is, those who participate and engage in a modem day form of slavery, by using force, fraud, or coercion to exploit the unwitting. See, e.g., Legal Options To Stop Human Trafficking: Hearing Before The Subcomm. on Human Rights and the Law of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. 15 (Mar. 26, 2007) (statement of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Grace Chung Becker) ("Human trafficking is really about force, fraud or coercion, and that is the key element that describes human trafficking."); Report on Activities to Combat Human Trafficking, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Web. 24, 2006), available at http://149.101.1.32/crt/crim/trafficking_report_2006.pdf ("[T]rafficking is the modern-day form of slavery. It requires the use of force, fraud or coercion by a trafficker to compel a person, or hold someone in an employment situation in which he or she will be criminally exploited."). Again, there is no evidence that Mr. Epstein's conduct or that of his associates resembles the kind of conduct at which this statute was aimed. To the contrary, the evidence shows again and again that the young women involved in this case were willing participants: they lied about their age because they knew Mr. Epstein was not interested in minors; they called the home seeking to make their own appointments with Mr. Epstein; many returned to the home on multiple occasions; and they were free to stay or leave on whatever terms they desired. Congress plainly did not intend § 1591 to cover these circumstances. 4. The Department's Own Policy Statements Regarding The Ts/PA Foreclose The Application Of & 1591 In This Case. The Department's own policy statements on prostitution-based cases underscores that § 1591 cannot and should not be distorted to include the conduct at issue in this case. As the Department has explained, "Federal law prioritizes crimes in which victims have been trafficked as a result of force, fraud, or coercion, including the sex trafficking of children in which coercion is presumed i.e. crimes that fall under the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition on slavery and involuntary servitude, and commercial sex involving transportation in interstate commerce." See November 9, 2007 DOJ letter to the Judiciary, at 8, Exhibit 15. The Department's position further opposes the federalization of "prostitution-related offenses" as an unnecessary "diversion fiom Federal law enforcement's core anti-trafficking mission," and expresses the view that State and local authorities are more than capable of addressing such offenses. Id. at 8-9. Needless to say, Mr. Epstein is not a "trafficker" of children. He derived no profit from any prostitution business. And the testimony of the women is clear and uncontroverted: Mr. Epstein did not exercise force, fraud, or coercion over any female—in fact, quite the opposite. See Summary of Testimony re No Coercion, Exhibit 31. Therefore, there is no basis for presuming coercion here, given the clear record that the conduct in question was voluntary, non- violent, and non-coercive. 5. The Department's Prosecution History and Existing Case Law Foreclose The Application Of & 1591 In This Case. EFTA00225879

• • • Page 30 residents in Palm Beach. And any impact that the private, consensual activities at issue in this case could have had on interstate commerce was far too attenuated to sustain the application of this statute to Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct—not least of all because there is no evidence whatsoever that Congress intended § 1591 to target the sort of purely local conduct at issue here (as opposed to the interstate or transnational trafficking of minors). Needless to say, application of the statute inder these circumstances would raise grave constitutional concerns, see, e.g., United States Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000); United States I 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and given the absence of any basis in the text, structure, or history o e statute for thinking that Congress intended to reach such purely local conduct, it should not be stretched to apply here. 2. The Structure Of The Statute Forecloses Its Application In This Case. The broader structure of the statute likewise makes clear that § 1591 was never intended to apply to the sort of conduct at issue in this case. § 1591 was enacted in 2000 as part of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), which is a comprehensive legislative scheme aimed at the problem of human trafficking. That statute created four new offenses, each of which unquestionably is directed at coercive human trafficking, rather than simple solicitation of prostitution: Section 1589 addresses forced labor; section 1590 addresses trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude or forced labor; § 1591 addresses trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion; and section 1592 addresses the concealment or confiscation of another person's passport or identification in the course of violating the preceding trafficking provisions. And the TVPA goes on to provide for the civil and criminal forfeiture of trafficking proceeds. In every respect, then, the TVPA is directed at interstate and international human trafficking, particularly of women and children (and involving forced labor and sex). Each section of the statute plainly targets the operators of trafficking regimes, not their "Johns." Reading the statute to apply to simple prostitution, which is all this case involves, would wrench § 1591 from its surrounding context, and strain it to apply here—where there is not even a whiff of coercion, and no evidence whatsoever that the young women involved in this case were incapable of making their own choices. 3. The History Of The Statute Forecloses Its Application In This Case. The legislative history of § 1591 and the TVPA further makes clear that Congress intended the statute only to cover human trafficking offenses, not mere solicitation. See 114 Stat. 1464 § 102 (Oct. 2000) (purpose of § 1591 is "to combat trafficking in persons, a contemporary manifestation of slavery"); id. ("Trafficking in persons is a modem form of slavery, and it is the largest manifestation of slavery today. At least 700,000 persons annually, primarily women and children, are trafficked within or across international borders. Approximately 50,000 women and children are trafficked into the United States each year."). None of the stated goals of the TVPA in general, and of § 1591 in particular, apply to acts of solicitation of prostitution. Nothing in the legislative history states or any way suggests EFTA00225880