EFTA00192835

Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-0 I 1789 
EFTA00192835

Memorandum 
Subjeci 
Operation Leap Year: Notification of Breach 
USAO No. 2006R0 181 
June 9, 2009 
To 
Jeffrey H. Sloman 
Acting United States Attorney 
Robert K. Senior 
First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Rolando Garcia 
Deputy Chief, Criminal Division, West Palm Beach 
Karen Atkinson, Chief 
Chief, Criminal Section I, Northern Division, WPB 
From 
A. Marie Villafan 
AUSA, Ft Laude 
INTRODUCTION.
This memorandum seeks approval to serve the attached letter providing notice of a breach 
of the Non-Prosecution Agreement on attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein. On Friday, June 12, 2009, 
Judge Marra will be presiding ova a hearing on Jeffrey Epstein's motions to stay all of the civil 
lawsuits filed against him by victims identified through our investigation. In his Order setting the 
matter for a hearing, Judge Marra stated: 
This hearing shall be limited to the issue of whether Defendant Epstein's defense of 
the civil actions filed against him violates the non-prosecution agreement between 
Epstein and the United States. The United States' position in this matter would be 
very helpful to the Court and, accordingly, the Court requests that the United States 
appear at the hearing. 
Based upon a review of pleadings filed by Epstein in connection with the civil suits, Epstein 
has taken positions directly in contravention of the Non-Prosecution Agreement between Epstein 
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-01 1790 
EFTA00192836

and the United States. Accordingly, I recommend that we provide Epstein's counsel with Notice 
of the Breach at the hearing on June 12th, and proceed to indictment promptly thereafter. 
BACKGROUND 
In the summer of 2006, the FBI approached the U.S. Attorney's Office about an investigation 
of Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") into allegations of enticing minors to engage in prostitution. The 
Town of Palm Beach Police Department ("PBPD") had approached the FBI after it became 
convinced that Epstein's attorneys had placed undue pressure on the Palm Beach County State 
Attorney's Office ("SAO"), causing them to forego prosecution of Epstein. When the SAO 
presented the case to a state grand jury rather than proceeding by information, and when the state 
grand jury returned an indictment charging only solicitation of adult prostitution, PBPD asked the 
FBI to begin a federal investigation. FBI, in turn, approached the USAO about possible federal 
prosecution. 
The federal grand jury investigation began in the summer of 2006, and the first grand jury 
subpoenas were issued in August 2006. Towards the end of 2006, Epstein's attorneys began making 
contact with the U.S. Attorney's Office to seek resolution of the case. A meeting in West Palm 
Beach was held with Epstein's attorneys in February 2007. Aftcr that meeting, the investigation 
continued, and an indictment package was prepared in May 2007 with the intent to present to the 
grand jury in mid-May. At the requests of Epstein's counsel, the indictment was delayed to allow 
Epstein's attorneys to meet with additional members of the U.S. Attorney's Office. A meeting was 
held on Junc 26,2007, when Epstein's attorneys presented their arguments why federal prosecution 
was inappropriate. 
On July 31, 2007, another meeting occurred between Epstein's attorneys and the U.S. 
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 
2 
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-01 1791 
EFTA00192837

Attorney's Office. At that meeting, the United States presented a list of terms of a possible non-
prosecution agreement. One of those terms was: 
Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file 
suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest thc jurisdiction of the U.S. 
District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and the subject 
matter. Epstein will not contest that identified victims are persons who, while 
minors, were victims of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section(s) 2422 
and/or 2423. 
At that time, Epstein's attorneys advised that an agreement involving jail time would not be 
acceptable. 
On August 31, 2007, the FBI agents and I met with Drew Oosterbaan, Chief of the Child 
Exploitation and Obscenity Section, to discuss the evidence and theory of the prosecution. Ile had 
previously been provided with a copy of the prosecution memo related to the indictment. On 
September 7, 2007, Epstein's attorneys met with the U.S. Attorney, Drew Oosterbaan, Jeff Sloman, 
John McMillan, and I. Ken Starr presented federalism arguments, urging deferral to state 
prosecution. When those arguments failed, Epstein's attorneys slated that he wanted to engage in 
plea negotiations. Epstein's attorneys wavered back and forth between a Non-Prosecution 
Agreement, involving pleading to state charges, or a plea to federal charges. Finally, on September 
24, 2007, the Non-Prosecution Agreement was signed.' The Agreement contains the following 
provisions: 
'An amended indictment package had been prepared and was scheduled for presentation to 
the grand jury on September 25, 2007. Judge Marra also had scheduled a hearing on Epstein's 
motion to quash grand jury subpoenas for the computer equipment removed from Epstein's home 
by Roy Black's investigator when they learned of the stale investigation. This was postponed to 
allow plea negotiations and eventually was withdrawn pursuant to the terms of the Non-Prosecution 
Agreement. 
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 
3 
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-011792 
EFTA00192838

8. 
If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7),2 supra, elects to file suit 
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the 
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his 
person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest 
liability and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as 
agreed to between the identified individual and Epstein, so long as the 
identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, 
and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, 
federal, or common law. Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals 
whose names appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's 
signature on this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and 
such damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any 
criminal or civil liability. 
10. 
Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 18 
U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), supra, neither Epstein's 
signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or 
settlements by Epstein arc to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil 
or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdiction or other defense as to any 
person, whether or not her name appears on the list provided by the United 
States. 
The Agreement also called upon Epstein to use his "best efforts" to enter a guilty plea and 
be sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. (1 I 1.) Citing conflicts with attorney schedules, 
Epstein's attorneys asked the USAO to extend the deadline for his plea and sentencing. After a 
series of delays, Epstein's attorneys sought review by members of the Justice Department. When 
it appeared that the Non-Prosecution Agreement would be undone, the indictment package was 
prepared again, and was reviewed in anticipation of presentation to the grand jury. 
On June 23, 2008, Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General John Roth denied the various 
appeals of Epstein's attorneys and wrote, "Even if we were to substitute our judgment for that of the 
U.S. Attorney, we believe that federal prosecution of this case is appropriate. Moreover, having 
2The"indiv iduals referred to in paragraph (7)" are"individuals whom (the United States) has 
identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255." 
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 
4 
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-011793 
EFTA00192839

reviewed your allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and the facts underlying them, we see 
nothing in the conduct of the U.S. Attorney's Office that gives us any reason to alter our opinion." 
After several more skirmishes regarding the wording of the plea agreement with the State 
Attorney's Office, Epstein entered his guilty plea and was sentenced on June 30, 2008. In 
accordance with the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, later that day, Special Agent 
Kuyrkcndall and I met with Attorneys Jack Goldberger and Michael Tein and provided them with 
a written list of the 32 identified victims. 
Since the entry of the plea and sentencing, a number of concerns have been raised with 
Epstein's attorneys, including: (I) their objections to our efforts to notify victims of the resolution 
of the case; (2) their refusal to abide by and pay for the victims' representative, Bob Josefsberg, who 
had been selected by Judge Michael 
acting pro bono as a Special Master; (3) their 
representations to the Court about the continued pendency of the motion related to the subpoena for 
the computer equipment removed by a private investigator; (4) inappropriate contact between people 
working for Epstein and the identified victims; and (5) Epstein's application for and participation 
in the work release program. Some written notifications of potential breaches have been provided 
to Epstein's counsel. Those have all been resolved without a determination of breach by the U.S. 
Attorney's Office and a resultant indictment. 
THE CIVIL SUITS AGAINST EPSTEIN 
Not surprisingly, since the entry of the guilty plea, a number of victims have filed suit against 
Epstein. In federal court, fourteen suits have been filed against Epstein. All of those casts have 
been assigned to Judge Marra who also was assigned the lawsuit filed against the United States by 
two of Epstein's victims. In the Victims' Rights suit, Judge Marra ordered the United States to make 
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 
5 
AITORNEY WORK PRODUCT 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-011794 
EFTA00192840

the Non-Prosecution Agreement available to each of the victims and/or her attorney, so long as they 
agreed to be bound by a Protective Order. Each victim (or her attorney) was provided with notice 
of the Court's ruling, and several executed the Protective Order and were provided with copies of 
the Non-Prosecution Agreement. 
From the beginning, Epstein has "vigorously defended" the suits, and has filed several 
motions to dismiss. In all of the early suits, the plaintiffs raised only common law tort claims or a 
combination of common law claims and a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. A number of plaintiffs' 
attorneys have argued that Epstein's defenses violate the NPA. Reviewing the language of the NPA 
and resolving any ambiguities in favor of Epstcin, those defenses do not breach thc NPA. However, 
some of the later plaintiffs, especially those represented by Bob Josefsberg, filed claims exclusively 
under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Epstein has filed answers and Motions to Dismiss those Complaints as 
well, asserting defenses to liability, including that there can be no liability because Epstein was not 
convicted of an offense enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255. By doing so, Epstein has breached the 
NPA. 
The following is a brief synopsis of the suits filed in federal court.' 
I. 
Doe I. Epstein, 08-CV-80804-KAM: This suit was filed in state court, but was 
removed to federal court on July 18, 2008 by Epstein. The suit was filed by IM 
G., the first victim identified in PBPD's investigation. Plaintiff filed motion to 
remand to state court, which was granted by Judge Marra. 
2. 
Jane Doe #2I. Epstein, 08-CV-80 I 19-KAM: Complaint filed on February 6, 2008, 
alleging: sexual assault (Count l), and intentional infliction of emotional distress 
(Count II). Epstein moved to stay the litigation, which was denied by Judge Marra. 
Epstein moved to dismiss Count I, claiming that there was no civil cause of action 
iAs mentioned above, the NPA provides protection only to victims who proceed exclusively 
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. By definition, the lawsuits filed in state court do not contain claims 
for relief under section 2255. Accordingly, this memo will not address those lawsuits. 
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 
6 
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-011795 
EFTA00192841

for "sexual assault." Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint asserting: sexual assault 
and battery (Count I), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count 11), and 
"coercion and enticement to sexual activity in violation of I8 U.S.C. § 2422 (Count 
III). Epstein again moved to dismiss, claiming that there was no civil cause ofaction 
for"sexual assault and battery," and arguing that the plaintiff had not made sufficient 
factual allegations to support a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2422. Plaintiff then filed a 
Second Amended Complaint raising the same claims, hut providing additional 
factual allegations. Epstein filed an Answer, in which he cited his Fifth Amendment 
privilege from self-incrimination as the response to the allegations in the Second 
Amended Complaint. Epstein also raised the following affirmative defenses: 
As to all counts, Plaintiff consented to and was a willing 
participant in the acts alleged. 
2. 
As to all counts alleged, Plaintiff consented to and 
participated in conduct similar and/or identical to the acts 
alleged with other persons which were the sole or 
contributing cause of Plaintiff's alleged damages. 
3. 
As to all counts, Defendant reasonably believed that the 
Plaintiff had attained the age of 18 years old at the time of the 
alleged acts. 
4. 
Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statute of 
limitations. 
Epstein then filed another Motion to Stay all of the civil litigation. Judge Marra 
ordered theUnited States to file a written response, and the matter is set for hearing 
on Friday, Junc 12, 2009. Today, Epstein filed an Amended Answer, raising a 
number of additional affirmative defenses, including that the claims are barred by the 
statute of limitations and that the pre-2006 version of 18 U.S.C. § 2255 applies, 
which only creates a cause of action for a person who is still a "minor," as opposed 
to "any person who, while a minor," was a victim of an offense. 
3. 
Jane Doe #3 I. Epstein, 08-CV-80232-KAM: This suit was filed by the same 
lawyers as in the Jane Doe #2 suit, and the procedural history is identical. 
4. 
Jane Doe #4'. Epstein, 08-CV-80380-KAM: This suit was filed by the samc 
lawyers as in the Jane Doe #2 suit, and the procedural history is identical. 
5. 
Jane Doe #51 Epstein, 08-CV-80381-KAM: This suit was filed by the same 
lawyers as in the Jane Doe #2 suit, and the procedural history is identical. 
6. 
Jane Doe #6l. Epstein, 08-CV-80994-KAM: This suit was filed by the same 
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 
7 
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-011796 
EFTA00192842

lawyers as in the Jane Doe #2 suit, and the procedural history is identical. 
7. 
Jane Doe #7'. Epstein, 08-CV-80993-KAM: This suit was filed by the same 
lawyers as in the Jane Doe #2 suit, and the procedural history is identical. 
8. 
C.M.A. I. Epstein, 08-CV-80811-KAM: This suit was filed in state court and 
removed to federal court. Plaintiff sued Epstein and Sarah Kellen (Epstein's 
assistant). Kellen is represented by Bruce Reinhart. CMA's initial Complaint 
alleged sexual abuse and intentional infliction of emotional distress. CMA later filed 
a First Amended Complaint, which alleged 30 separate claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
§ 2255. Epstein filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that a victim can raise only one 
claim under section 2255, not a separate claim for each occurrence. A few days ago, 
CMA filed a document entitled "Conditional Notice of Intent to Exclusively Rely on 
Statutory Damages provided by 18 U.S.C. § 2255." In that document, CMA states 
that, if the statutory floor applies to each of her 30 claims under § 2255, then she will 
forego her civil claims. If, however, the Court decides that the statutory floor can 
apply to each victim only once, then she wants to be able to pursue both her statutory 
and common law claims. 
9. 
Doe'. Epstein, 08-CV-80893-KAM: This suit was filed by one of the victims who 
brought the victim's rights suit against the United States. She is represented by Brad 
Edwards. The Complaint raises the following claims: sexual exploitation, sexual 
abuse and/or sexual assault of a minor (Count 1), "Cause of Action pursuant to 18 
U.S.C. § 2255" (Count II), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count Ill), 
and "Civil Remedy for Criminal Practices" (Count IV). Plaintiff also filed a separate 
"Civil RICO Statement." Epstein filed a motion to dismiss or for a more definite 
statement, which was granted in part by Judge Marra. Plaintiff filed an Amended 
Complaint in April, adding a claim for damages under a Florida statute providing 
compensation forerime victims. Epstcin has filed several motions to extend the time 
to file his Answer pending the outcome of his motion to stay all the civil litigation. 
Epstcin must file his Answer to this Amended Complaint by June 12th, the date of 
thc hearing on the Motion to Stay. 
10. 
Doe iii. Epstein, 09-CV-80469-KAM: This Complaint is based exclusively on 18 
U.S.C. § 2255. Plaintiff alleges that she was a victim of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 
2422(b), and that Epstein "has made an agreement with the United States Attorney's 
Office to not contest liability for claims brought exclusively pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
§ 2255, in exchange for avoiding federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(6), 
which provides a sentence of 10 years for each violation of thc law." On May 6, 
2009, Epstein filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the case should be dismissed 
because the plaintiff had already filed a state court suit for common law claims 
arising from the same activity. Epstcin also argued that the version of I8 U.S.C. § 
2255 that was in effect at the time of the sexual encounters applies (with its $50,000 
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 
8 
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-011797 
EFTA00192843

minimum rather than the $ I 50,000 minimum).' 
I I. 
Doe No. 1011. Epstein, 09-CV-80591-KAM: This was the first suit filed by Bob 
losefsberg's firm. On May I, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint alleging 
six claims under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 —a separate count for each predicate offense that 
Epstein committed. Thus, Count I alleges that defendant Epstein "used a facility or 
means of interstate and/or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, 
or coerce Janc Doe No. 101, when she was under the age of 18 years, to engage in 
prostitution and/or sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a 
criminal offense .. . in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)." The other counts charge 
that Epstein violated § 2423(b) (travel with intcnt to engage in illicit sexual conduct); 
§ 2251 (production of child pornography); §2252(a)(I) (transportation of child 
pornography); § 2252A(a)(1) (distribution of child pornography); and § 2252A(g) 
(engaging in a child exploitation enterprise). 
12. 
Doe No. 102 I. Epstein, 09-CV-80656-KAM: 
This suit also was filed by 
Josefsberg's firm. On May I, 2009, Plaintiff filed suit alleging the same claims 
raised by Doe No. 101. Epstein has not yet filed his answer to that Complaint. 
13. 
Doe No. 81 Epstein, 09-CV-80802-KAM: This is the most recently filed suit. It 
was filed on May 28, 2009. This suit was filed by the same lawyers as in the Jane 
Doe N2 suit, and the procedural history is identical. 
THE PLEADING THAT VIOLATED THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT 
Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement speaks of waiving challenges to liability and damages 
and one could certainly argue that the liability waiver applies to any 2255 claim filed by one of the 
listed victims. However, construing any ambiguity in favor of Epstein, the most conservative 
reading of the NPA requires him to waive challenges to liability in those cases where the plaintiff 
proceeds exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Jane Doe #101 has stated all claims pursuant to 18 
U.S.C. § 2255 and is not seeking any common law, state, or other federal statutory remedies. In 
response to those claims, Epstein has made the following arguments in his Motion to Dismiss the 
'Although not raised in the Motion to Dismiss Jane Doe 11's Complaint, Epstein has argued 
in another suit that, under the pre-2006 law, only persons who are still "minors" can file suit under 
18 U.S.C. § 2255. In the 2006 version of the law, the language was changed to allow suit by any 
person who, "while a minor," was a victim of a violation. 
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 
9 
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-011798 
EFTA00192844

First Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement (which is attached 
hereto): 
A. 
The applicable version of § 2255 only permits "minor" to sue: . .. Yet the 
FAC [First Amended Complaint] affirmatively admits that Plaintiff is over the age 
of 18.... Plaintiff is bound by that admission, and the FAC must be dismissed with 
prcjudicc... . 
B. 
Nor is Plaintiff the "victim of a violation" of a predicate criminal statute 
within the meaning of § 2255. 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a). In our system of justice, those 
accused of "violating" a criminal statute arc innocent until proven guilty beyond a 
reasonable doubt in criminal court. With due respect to the courts that have 
concluded otherwise, it defies common sense to think that Congress intended to 
invert that fundamental legal norm, and the legislative history of § 2255 expressly 
confirms that Congress intended to condition § 2255 actions on an antecedent 
criminal conviction. The FAC therefore must be dismissed because it does not—and 
cannot—allege that Defendant has been convicted of a predicate criminal offense. 
C. 
Even if the applicable version of § 2255 were construed to allow adults to sue 
in the absence of a predicate conviction, the FAC.. .-even taken as true-would not 
establish a legally "plausible" claim that Plaintiff is a victim of any predicate 
criminal offense giving rise to a § 2255 cause of action. 
(Epstein's Mot' n at 2-3.) 
The motion expands each of these arguments. With respect to his argument that only 
"minors" can sue for damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein asserts that the 2006 amendment to 
§ 2255 was not meant to apply retroactively and cannot apply retroactively because it would violate 
the Ex Post Facto Clause.' 
The pre-2006 statute reads: "Any minor who is a victim of [certain federal crimes] and who 
suffers personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any appropriate United States District 
Court and shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including 
a reasonable attorney's fee. any minor as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to 
have sustained damages of no less than $50,000 in value." 
In 2006, the statute was revised to state: "Any person who, while a minor, was a victim of 
[certain federal crimes] and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation, regardless of 
whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor, may sue in any appropriate United 
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 
10 
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-011799 
EFTA00192845

As to his second argument, Epstein reiterates that the "FAC still would fail as a matter of law 
because it does not (and cannot consistent with Rule I 1) allege that Defendant is guilty of 'a 
violation' of a predicate statute.... As set forth below, the plain text of the statute and its legislative 
history demonstrate that § 2255 is conditioned on a prior federal conviction. Because Defendant has 
never been convicted of a predicate federal offense, the FAC must be dismissed." (Epstein's Mot'n 
at 14-15.) He explains: 
Given the presumption of innocence that animates our system of criminal justice, 
Congress's reference to "a victim of a violation" of a criminal statute can only be 
interpreted to require proof that the defendant has been convicted of a predicate 
federal offense against the plaintiff. After all, an individual accused of "violating" 
a criminal statute is deemed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 
It would turn that principle upside down if plaintiffs could sue in the absence of an 
antecedent criminal conviction. 
(Id. at IS.) Epstein notes that the only district courts to have addressed § 2255 have held that an 
"antecedent conviction" is not required, but argues that those cases were wrongly decided. In her 
Complaint, Jane Doe #101 asserted that Epstein had been convicted of state law crimes and, taking 
language directly from Alex Acosta's letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez, wrote that Epstein "is in the same 
position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against Plaintiff and, 
as such, must admit liability unto Plaintiff." (Id. at 20.) Epstein quotes from the state plea colloquy 
and the state charging instrument to show that the state charges do not relate to Janc Doc #101. 
Further, he writes, "even if Defendant's state-law pleas did involve state-law offenses against 
Plaintiff—which they did not—§ 2255 only authorizes suit based on predicate convictions under 
certain federal statutes..:' (Id. at 21 (emphasis added).) 
States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the 
suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any person as described in the preceding sentence shall 
be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than 5150,000 in value." 
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 
II 
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-011800 
EFTA00192846

Epstein then addresses each of Jane Doe #101's claims. Taking his arguments directly from 
the various "position papers" that Epstein submitted to our office to urge declination, he argues: 
(I) 
Epstein could not have violated 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) because he did not use a facility 
of interstate commerce to persuade Jane Doc #101 to engage in sexual activity — the persuasion 
always occurred in person. 
(2) 
Epstein could not have violated 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) because the "dominant motive" 
for Epstein's interstate travel was not to engage in unlawful sexual activity. "Instead, as the FAC 
makes clear, Defendant is a successful businessman who maintains homes and properties around the 
world. Even if the FAC's fanciful allegations regarding Defendant's conduct while at those homes 
were true, the FAC does not remotely allege that his dominant motive for travel was to engage in 
illicit sexual acts ..." (Id. at 28 (emphasis in original).) 
(3) 
Plaintiff failed to adequately plead violations of IS U.S.C. § 2251, 2252(a)(1) and 
2252A(a)( I ) because she does not allege that Epstein intended to transmit or actually did transmit 
images of child pornography in interstate commerce, and alleged only that Epstein "may have taken 
lewd photographs of Plaintiff . ." 
(4) 
Epstein could not have violated 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g) because the statute was not 
enacted until 2006, and Jane Doc # 101 alleges that her interactions with Epstein occurred in 2003. 
RECOMMENDATION 
As explained above, the Non-Prosecution Agreement provides, in relevant part, that "If any 
of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7),6 supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, 
'The "individuals referred to in paragraph (7)" are "individuals whom [the United States) has 
identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255." 
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 
I2 
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-011801 
EFTA00192847

Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District 
of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability 
and also waives his right to contest damages up to an amount as agreed to between the identified 
individual and Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed exclusively under 18 
U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, 
or common law." The United States has performed its obligations under the NPA, and Jane Doe 
#101 has proceeded exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, yet Epstein is contesting liability. 
Moreover, Epstein is not simply contesting whether Jane Doc #101 is owed damages because of the 
particular circumstances of his interactions with Jane Doe 4101, he is asserting that he can never be 
forced to pay damages pursuant to I8 U.S.C. § 2255 because—in reliance on the NPA—the United 
States never prosecuted and convicted him of a predicate offense. The protection of the victims' 
rights to restitution was one of the most important aspects of the NPA and the failure of that key 
piece of consideration cannot be tolerated. This is especially true when one considers that Epstein 
has served virtually no jail time, in contravention of the NPA and representations made to our Office 
by Epstein's attorneys. The importance of this consideration is reiterated later in the NPA: "In 
consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner 
described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, 
the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-
conspirators of Epstein." (NPA at p.5.) The Agreement continues: "By signing this agreement, 
Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is material to this agreement and is supported 
by independent consideration and that a breach of any one of these conditions allows the United 
States to elect to terminate the agreement and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other 
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAl. 
13 
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-011802 
EFTA00192848

individual or entity for any and all federal offenses." (NPA at p.6.) 
Accordingly, I recommend that the Office declare that Epstein has breached the NPA and 
proceed promptly to indictment. 
NOTICE REOUIREMENTS OF TILE NPA 
Pursuant to the NM, the U.S. Attorney's Office is required to provide prompt notice of a 
breach: 
If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, 
during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions 
of this Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days 
following the expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide 
Epstein with timely notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has 
violated, and shall initiate its prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of 
giving notice of this violation. Any notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this 
paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the United States learning of facts 
which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of the Agreement. 
(NPA at p.2.) 
The pleading that is the subject of the breach was filed with the Court on May 26, 2009. 
Thus, we must provide notice of the breach not later than Saturday, July 25, 2009. The Office also 
must indict within 60 days of giving notice. In light of Judge Marra's directive that the Office 
address the issue of breach at the hearing on Friday, June 12, 2009, I recommend that we provide 
that Notice at the hearing. 
PRI VILF.GED AND CONFIDENTIAL 
14 
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-011803 
EFTA00192849

DIRE: 
INVESTIGATION OF 
JEFFREY EPSTEBS 
IS.QPPIROSECITTIOLLAGEEEMENT 
IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the Slate 
Attorney's Office for the ISth Judicial Circuit in and foe Palm Beach County Oureinafter, 
the "Sum Attorney'. Office, have conducted an investigation into the conduct of kffrcy 
Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"; 
IT APPEARING that the Sale AtI0OICY$ Office Nu charged Epstein by indktnxre 
with solicitation of prottltugon, in vildko of Floddy Stamm Sutton 79607; 
IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office end the Federal Bum. of 
Inveuimetion have conducted their own investigation into Epstein'. background end any 
offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against de United Stow Bunt in or 
around 2001 through in or around September 2007, Including: 
(I) 
(2) 
(7) 
knowingly and willfully cornicing with othen known and unknown to 
commit an offemc againn the United States. that is, lo use. facility ot means 
of interstate or fievign commerce to knowingly persuade, Induce, or entice 
talon: famaka to engage in prostitution, in violation of TItle IL United States 
Cork,Section2d22(b); all in violation oflitIc IS, United Mahn Code, Section 
knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel 
in Interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sans./ conduct as 
defined in It U.S.C. § 2423(0. with minor female., in violation of Tide 
United States Code, Section 2423(b), all In viobation of Title It, United Stases 
Code, Section 2427(e); 
wing a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly 
persuade, induce, or entice minor female. to engage In prostitution; in 
violation of Title ILI/ailed States Code, Sections 2422(2) and 2; 
(4) 
traveling (n Interstate ~one 
for the purpose of tooting in illicit actual 
conducts, defined in It U.S.C. § 2427(0, with minor females; in violpion 
Page I or 7 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-011804 
EFTA00192850

of Title IS. United Stain Code, Section 2423(b); and 
knowingly. l and effecting interstate and foreip commove, recruiting. 
enticko, std obtaining by any mean a person, knowing th t the person had 
not attained the age of IS years and Would be caused to engage in a 
commercial sax eel as defined In IS U.S.C. § I591(eXI); in violation of rifle 
IS, United Slate, Code, Sections 1391(.Xl)and 2; end 
IT APPEAR1NO that Epstein seeks to resolve globally hls slate and ftdetst criminal 
liability and Epstein understands and &knowledge, that, in exchange for the benefit, 
provided by this agreement, &agrees to comply with its temo,Including andertakkotattath 
actions with the Stale Anomey's Office; 
IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Eintcm's background by 
both Sow and Federal law enforcement 'omelet, and idler due tenni:tenon with do State 
Ammons Office, that the interests of the United Sines, the State of Florida, and the 
Defendant soil) be sewed by the following proodum, 
THEREFORE, on the authority of It. Alexander Acosta, United Slates Attorney for 
the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District foe these offenses shall be 
defined in favor of prosecuticm by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the 
following conditions and the roquinmatts of this Aapecemnt set forth below. 
If the United States Attorney should &leonine, bawd on reliable evidence, that, 
during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this 
Agreement. then the United States Attorney any, within ninety (90) days following the 
expiation of the tear of home confinement dismissed below, provide Epstein with timely 
notice specifying the condition(s)of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate Its 
prosecution on any offane within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any 
notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the 
United States learning of facts which may provide a bans for • determined& of a breach of 
the ANorment. 
After timely ft:Inning all the tame end conditions of the Agreement, no proscanton 
for the offenses set orlon pages I and 2 oft/ItsAgreement, nor any other offenses that have 
been the ambled of the joint investigation by the federal Hunan of Investigation and the 
United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal (nand July 
investigation will be instituted in this District. and the charges against Epstein if any, will be 
dismissed. 
Pau 2 of 7 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-011805 
EFTA00192851

Terms of the Agreement: 
IiPtieln shall Plead guilty (not robs contendere) to the kakonent 
currently pending against him In the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for 
Palm Beach County (Case NO. 2006-cf-00919SAX)O(MB) charging 
roe (I) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. 
796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed 
by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that 
requires him to register to a sex offender, that is, the soliductica of 
minas to engage in restitution. in viotation of Florida Statutes Section 
796.03. 
2. 
Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose 
thirty (J0) month sentence to be divided a follows: 
(a) 
Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) 
months and Mx (6) months in county jail foe all charges, without 
any opportunity for withholding edJudleadon eras:Mewing, and 
without probation w community control In lieu of 
Inspriscninan; and 
(b) 
Epstein shall be unlaced toe term of twelve (12) months of 
community control comocutivc to hie two mina In comityJail 
as described k Term 2(e), nye°. 
3. 
Ills senescent b continual upon a fudge of the 15th hadkial Circuit 
accepting and executing ft /4111CIWA tweed upon between the State 
Attonsey's Office sod Epstein. the details orwhich are set fords In this 
agreement. 
4. 
The tennis contained in puamsphs I and 2, supra, do not foreclose 
Epstein and the Slate Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend 
any additional charge(s) 04 any additional krm(s) of probation ardor 
Incarcetation. 
5. 
Epstein shall waive all challenges to 0se Information flied by the Suite 
Attorneys 0111ce and shall waive the right to cusped' his conviction and 
seetena, except a sentence that exceeds what 13 set forth in paragraph 
(2), aup'o. 
6. 
Epstein skill provide to the O.S. Attorney's Office copies of all 
Pssc3of 7 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-011806 
EFTA00192852

proposed aptemenu with the Suite Attorney's Office prior mastering 
into those agreements. 
The United Siam shell provide Epstein's attorneys with a lin of 
individuals whom it has Identified as victims, a defined in I g U.S.C. 
2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced. 
Upon the netcution of this egreeuwnt the United Sates,in consultation 
with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's cartel, shall 
seket an anomey representative for these persons, who shall be paid foe 
by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals 
through that representative. 
If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra. elect. to 
MC suit pursuant to IS U.S.C. § 2255. Epstein will not contest the 
junsdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District 
of Florida ova his person andror the subject matter, end Ea:kitty/Dives 
his rialst to contest liability and also waives his fight to contst damages 
up to an amount as agreed to between the Identified Individual and 
Epstein, so long as the identified individual elites to proceed 
exclusively under IS V.S.C. § 2255. and agrees to waive any other 
claim for damages, whether pus:tent estate, Meal, or common law. 
Nowrithsondird; this waiver, as to those Individuals whose names 
appear on the list provided by the United States. Epstein's signature on 
this az:icemen, his waivers and Gam to contest liability and suth 
damages In nay suit arc not to be construed as an admission of any 
criminal or civil liability. 
Epstein's signature on this agyeanent also is not to be caromed as en 
admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver °forty jurisdktional 
or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the 
list provided by the United Stale. 
10. 
Except es to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under 
IS U.S.0 f 2255, as set (whin penigntph (St manta. neither Epstein's 
signature on this agreement not Mums, nor any resulting %vulvas or 
settlements by Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evitkexe of 
civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any Jurisdictional or other 
defense as to any person. whether or not her name appun on the list 
provided by the United States. 
11. 
Epstein shall we his bat efforts to enter his guilty plea end be 
Page a of 7 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-011807 
EFTA00192853

sentenced net bier thm October 26, 2007. The United States hr no 
objection to Epstein self-rtgorting to begin serving his sentence not 
later than January 4. 2006. 
12. 
Epstein agree, Chit he
 not be afforded any benefits with ~set to 
pin time,other Menthe rights, opportungies, and benefits as any other 
inmate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit 
based on ruusdud role, and regulations that apply In the State of 
Fonda. Al the United Sias' toques«. Epstein *gnu M provide en 
accounting of the gain time he eamwd during his period of 
Incer«ration. 
I3. 
the ponies anticipate Nat this agreement will not be mede pan of any 
public record. if the United Slates receive, e Freedom of Information 
Act request or any compubory worm conunanding the disclosure of 
the agreement, int will provide notice to Epstein before making that 
disclosure. 
Epstein cederstands that the United States Attorney has no authority lo requite the 
Slate Attorney', Office to abide by any tema of this agreement Ennoln undershuldt that 
it Is Ma obligation to undertake din-Lesions with the Stale Artorerry's Office ard 10 we his 
but efforts to ensure compliance with them prwedurts which compliance will be necessary 
to ardsfy the United States' interest. Epstein alm understands that It is his obligation louse 
hin blot ,Ron, to convince the lodge of the 12th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein', binding 
recc nmendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understand, that the failure to 
do so will be e breach of the agreement 
In consideration of Epstein, agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation 
In the rriamwrdeseribed above, if fipseeir.succesfiilly NNW' all of the forma andconditions 
*IOW agreement, the United Slats also »grow that It will not institute any criminal charges 
against any potential coconspirator* of Epstein, Including but not limited to Sarah Kellen 
Adrian& R033, Lesley Groff, r $.dia hiarcinkova Further, upon execution of this 
op temcrel sod a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Omni Jury 
investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Cmuul Jury subpoenas will be MN 
LI abeyance odes, and until the defendant violates any term of Nis agreement. The 
defendant likewise agree, to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and toquash certain 
grand jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, sweifkally evidence 
requested by or directly related to the wand jury subpoenas that have been issued, end 
includingoertain computer equipment, inviolate until all of the terms of Nis agreement have 
been satisfied. Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, all 
outstanding grand jury subpoenas *hell be deemed withdrawn. 
Pap S of 7 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-011808 
EFTA00192854