EFTA00230786

Care 9:08-Cv-80119-KAM Document 180 
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 
Page 51 of* 51 
10:1,11,22 12:6,10 
12:20 13:7,8 16:8 
16:17,23 17:2,4,8 
17:12,18 18:4,8,19 
209,18,19,2121:9 
22:7 24:8,11,18,20 
241.0 25:1,6 28:6 
30:12 31:213221 
32:23 33:7,10 
34:18,23 35:24 
36:5,8,9 37:1,13 
38:25 39:6,14 40:6 
40:21,23 41:1 
understand 5:7 
14:15 21:25 22:3 
23:24 29:25 30:14 
31:7 37:8 38:20 
39:25 
understanding 
20:10 
unfair 42:2 
unilateral 12:22 
unilaterally 7:13 
12:24 
United 1:1,11 2:22 
4:8 5:1,5,17 6:1 
9:24 10:6 13:21 
14:8,17 16:7 19:14 
22:10,19 29:8 39:4 
44:5,22 
unless 11:7 34:25 
unlimited 40:21 
until 37:23 
urge 22:9 
use 1015 11:8 2014 
23:11 28:25 40:11 
used 28:19 
US 2:15 4:10 7:1,9 
8:6 12:8,12 16:16 
26:19 27:4,18,19 
43:5,11,25 
U.S.A 2:16 
U.S.0 33:7 
various 3:1 10:25 
very 4:21 5:711:1,2 
11:20 12:21 16:19 
16:24 17:12,12 
23:1129:4 32:1 
35:18 38:10 40:18 
42:2 43:18 44:14 
Via 2:4,19,20 
victim 37:13 
victims 20:12 21:20 
28:23 31:12,16,23 
32:13 33:18 35:16 
39:20 41:17,18,19 
41:19 
view 16:19 
2:14 4:9 
4:10 17:10 30:10 
30:15 33:24 34:14 
35:2,4,6,12 39:4 
44:9,12 
violate 19:18 344 
violated 5:2 14:2 
39:6 
violates 8:5,11 33:2 
42:25 
violating 9:16,19 
38:17 41:6 43:13 
violation 8:23 9:9 
10:4,19 11:20 12:7 
12:9 13:15,19,20 
13:23 14:10,19 
15:2 16:7 18:19 
24:19 25:19,20 
29:10 34:10,13,24 
35:12,24 37:17 
40:25 41:4 
violations 17:17,18 
17:24 18:1,16 
19:23 40:1643:17 
43:22 
voluminous 31:4 
vs 1:6 3:1 5:17 
W 2:5 
wait 8:10 18:13 
42:12 
waive 25:14 
waiving 18:7 
want 8:9,10 11:15 
12:2 16:22 17:20 
21:4,4,5,14 22:1,6 
25:17 26:2,8,16,18 
26:23 27:4 29:16 
35:7 37:21 41:17 
41:2142:14,21 
44:9 
wanted 11:11 14:21 
17:5 20:12 29:15 
42:24 44:3 
wants 11:14 13:3 
19:2,16,20 23:4 
24:24 33:16 34:2 
warranted 6:22 
wasn't 28:21 
way 8:23 9910:5,16 
10:19 11:4 13:16 
14:10 19:23 25:1 
25:18 27:3,4 28:22 
28:23 
ways 30:18 
wealthy 32:13 
Weigh 26:11 
Weinberg 2:17 4:16 
4:16 
Weiss 2:12 
well 7:10 8:20 10:22 
11:12,12,13,13 
12:17 13:16 14:11 
15:7 16:18 17:15 
1713 18:10,11 
33:24 35:12,19,20 
36:5 39:4 40:13 
went 6:18,22 2623 
32:16 43:19 
were 6:10 14:6 15:10 
18:7 19:11 211 
29:23 31:17,18 
32:1,4,22 34:17 
3614 43:1 44:10 
weren't 32:9 
West 12,4,212:2,6 
2:10,13 
we'll 7:19,22 8:16 
17:23 26:13 40:17 
we're 9:8 10:2 12:10 
13:14 19:10,12 
20:5 27:15 28:17 
39:1 43:14 44:2 
we've 15:4 35:23 
36:5 43:12 
whatsoever 27:7 
while 32:7 34:16 
35:14 
whole 20:12 38:11 
wide 26:24 43:19 
willful 8:23 12:7 
willfully 9:19 
Willits 1:23 3:13,14 
26:10,10,14,15 
27:12,19 
win 29:5 
withdraw 28:8,11 
wonderful 28:23,24 
word 24:21 
worried 39:22 
worry 41:11 
Worth 1:24 
writing 28:13 
written 5:6 219 23:4 
X 
x 1:9 
yeah 41:3 
yesterday 21:9 
young 20:23 21:3,20 
$15 17:20 
8150,000 32:21 
850,000 17:5 32:21 
37:2 
0 
021162:18
0812:18,18 
08-80119-CIV-M 
1:3 
1 
15:17 
10 36:15 
10th 1:23 
101 2:3,7 33:5 35:13 
35:17 38:23 39:3,7 
40:8 
102 6:8 35:19 36:1,3 
409 41:21 
103 21:5 35:19 
104 35:19 
105 35:20 
11:1044:16 
121:5 9:4 
12th 13:12 
13 7:14 9:4 
14 7:14 
150 17:19,20 18:2 
24:12 
1727:23 289 
1833:7 
18205 1:14 
192713 28:9 
2
2 3:5 5:17 6:9,16 
29:14,22 
202:18 1725 182 
2009 1:5 13:12 
22 711 101 
224121 
2255 1613 17:4,17 
17:18 18:8,12,14 
20:2,9,19,21 2311 
23:22,23 24:8,17 
24:2125:6 31:21 
32:21,23 33:7,10 
36:6,23 37:13 41:2 
2290123 
25 2-1,6 
250 2:12 
26 20:4 
3
3 1:18 
3017:16,19,19 
3,7 
anIS 
:23 
:23 
33128 2:23 44:23 
33130 2:3,6 
33160 1:15 
33301 1:18 
33394 2:16 
33401 1 O:l0,13 
33461 1.74 
34 21:20 
4 
41:18 11:12 
400 2:23 44:22 
401 1:17 
5
51:18 6:9 
5th 12:18 
5018:2 24:12 
5002:15 
6
6 1:18 
2:19 
7 
7 1:18 3:5 29:14,22 
36:15 
8 
8 36:15 
8N09 2:23 
9 36: 
9
EFTA00231666

U
, 
SJ. QUINNEY 
COLLEGE OF LAW 
THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 
Wifredo A. Ferrer 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
99 N.E.4th Street 
Miami, FL 33132 
G. CASSELL 
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law 
Telephone: 
December 10, 2010 
Re: 
Request for Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein Prosecution 
Dear Mr. Ferrer: 
I am writing as someone with extensive experience in the federal criminal justice system 
— as a former Associate Deputy Attorney General, Assistant United States Attorney, federal 
judge, and currently criminal law professor — to alert you to what seems to be the most 
suspicious criminal case I have ever encountered. I ask that you investigate whether there were 
improper influences and actions during your office's criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, 
particularly regarding the decision to enter into a binding non-prosecution agreement blocking 
his prosecution for numerous federal sex offenses he committed over many years against more 
than thirty minor girls. 
As I am sure you are well aware, in 2006 your office opened a criminal investigation with 
the FBI into allegations that for years Jeffrey Epstein sexual abused dozens of minor girls in his 
West Palm Beach mansion. The FBI soon developed compelling evidence that Epstein had in 
fact committed numerous federal sex offenses with more than 30 minor girls. And yet, your 
office ultimately entered into a plea arrangement which allowed Epstein escape with a non-
prosecution agreement that ensured he would have no federal criminal liability and would 
spend no more than 18 months in state jail. For sexual offenses of this magnitude — in a case 
with more than 30 witnesses providing interlocking testimony, all made automatically 
admissible by virtue of Fed. R. Evid. 414 — this is an extraordinary outcome. 
Why did your office enter into this highly unusual non-prosecution arrangement with 
Epstein? Suspicion begins with the point that Epstein is a politically-connected billionaire. But 
that wouldn't be troubling without considerable other evidence that something went terribly 
wrong with the prosecution for other, improper reasons. Consider the following highly unusual 
facts: 
First, it appears that Epstein was tipped off before the execution of a search warrant at 
his home. We know that lead state police officers -- Detective 
and Police Chief Michael 
-- complained that the house was "sanitized" by the time they arrived to serve a search 
warrant for child pornography. This sanitation was evident by the various computer wires 
hanging with no computers attached. Housekeeper Janusz Banasiak later testified In a civil 
www.law.utah.edu • Main Office 
• Facsimile 
332 South 1400 East, Room 101 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0730 
EFTA00231667

deposition that Epstein's assistant, 
(M) and another man (unknown) were 
instructed to remove, and did in fact remove, multiple computers from Epstein's home shortly 
before the search warrant was served. The fact that there could well have been a tip off is 
apparently suspected by federal authorities. 
Second, there is evidence that one of the senior prosecutors in your office joined 
Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability 
— and improperly represented people close to Epstein. During the federal investigation of 
Epstein, Bruce Reinhart was a senior Assistant U.S. Attorney in your office. As we understand 
things, he was a direct supervisor of the line prosecutor handling the case and thus was well 
aware of details of the Epstein investigation and plea negotiations. We further believe that he 
was consulted on issues related to the prosecution of Epstein and Epstein's co-conspirators, 
including specifically issues related to whether Epstein employees and pilots should be 
prosecuted for their involvement in Epstein's sexual offense. We further believe that he 
personally and substantially participated in making such decisions about the course of the 
criminal investigation. 
Within months after the non-prosecution agreement was signed by your office, Reinhart 
left your office and immediately went into private practice as a white collar criminal defense 
attorney. His office coincidentally happened to be not only in the same building (and on same 
floor) as Epstein's lead criminal defense counsel, Jack Goldberger, but it was actually located 
right next door to the Florida Science Foundation -- an Epstein-owned and -run company where 
Epstein spent his "work release." 
While working in this office adjacent to Epstein's, Reinhart undertook the representation 
of numerous Epstein employees and pilots during the civil cases filed against Epstein by the 
victims — cases that involved the exact same crimes and exact same evidence being reviewed by 
the U.S. Attorney's office when he was employed there. Specifically, he represented 
Kellen (Epstein's number one co-conspirator who was actually named as such in the NPA), his 
housekeeper (Louella Ruboyo), his pilots Larry Morrison, Larry Visoski, David Rogers, William 
Hammond and Robert Roxburgh. (Hammond and Roxburgh were not deposed but the others 
were.) Our understanding is that his representation of these individuals was paid for, directly 
or indirectly, by Epstein. 
Reinhart was well aware of what evidence your office and federal investigator had 
collected against Epstein and about the minor girls who were his victims. As a consequence, he 
knew what evilience-the-atter-neys-forthe-victiras.-wete I Sine  _FlealsoinesKwhat each of those 
witnesses had said, if anything, to federal and state investigators during the criminal 
investigation. 
We have been unable to place our fingers on the federal regulations governing such later 
representation. We do know, however, that such actions appear to be in direct contravention 
of the Florida ethical rules regarding attorneys who leave government employment. For 
2 
EFTA00231668

example, Florida R. Prof. Conduct 4-1.11(a) provides "[a) lawyer shall not represent a private 
client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially 
as a public officer or employee unless the appropriate government agency consents after 
consultation." Similarly, Florida R. Prof. Conduct 4-1.11(6) provides that "[a] lawyer having 
information that the lawyer knows is confidential government information about a person 
acquired when the lawyer was a public officer or employee may not represent a private client 
whose interests are adverse to that person in a matter in which the information could be used 
to the material disadvantage of that person." Both these rules appear to have been violated. 
But entirely apart from the details of ethical rules, the fact that one of your prosecutors was 
involved in making important decisions about the scope of criminal liability for Epstein and his 
associates and then — after criminal liability was significantly limited — representing numerous 
people at Epstein's behalf raises serious questions. At the very least, there is the strong 
appearance that Reinhard may have attempted to curry favor with Epstein and then reap his 
reward through favorable employment. At the very worst, there may have been advance 
discussions — we simply don't know at this point. 
Third, Epstein appears to have deliberately kept from victims in the case correspondence 
with your office and the Justice Department that might have shed light on improper influences. 
Along with other capable attorneys, I was involved in representing one of Epstein's victims 
(..) who filed a federal civil case against Epstein. Suspecting that Epstein may have 
improperly influenced your office, we immediately served discovery requests on Epstein for all 
the correspondence with your office regarding the plea negotiations. Eleven months of hard 
litigation ensued, in which Epstein made every conceivable argument against production. 
Finally, late in June of this year, his appeals exhausted, Epstein produced the correspondence to 
us. However, in violation of the court order, he redacted the correspondence so that he 
provided only emails and other statements from your office — not his emails and statements to 
your office. More significantly, even though he was under court order to produce all 
correspondence between his attorneys and your office, Epstein secretly withheld 
correspondence by several of his most high-powered attorneys — namely Ken Starr and Lilly Ann 
Sanchez. Epstein settled the case with M. within days after this limited production, and we did 
not realize the absence of what must have been critical discussions between your office and 
Starr and Snachez (among others). Epstein's refusal to allow us to see that information raises 
the suspicion in our minds that there must have been unusual pressures being brought to bear 
during the plea discussions that would have been revealed had Epstein complied with his 
production obligations. 
mirth, t vre-appears le-have-been-an-imprecefientpti level of secrecy between your 
office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this case. The FBI was responsible, along 
with state and local police agencies, for building the case against Epstein. They appear to have 
developed an overwhelming criminal against him. And yet, when your office signed the non-
prosecution agreement with him, it is not clear to us that the FBI was consulted about this 
decision. Indeed, we have suspicions that the FBI was not informed of this decision until, 
perhaps, months later. 
3 
EFTA00231669

Supporting this suspicion is our on-going litigation regarding the treatment of the victims 
in this case. As you know from our draft pleadings that we have discussed with your office, we 
believe there is compelling evidence that the victims and their attorneys were deceived about 
the existence of a non-prosecution agreement for months in order to avoid what certainly 
would have been a firestorm of controversy about such lenient treatment of a repeat sex 
offender. Our impression from the evidence we have been able to obtain so far is that the FBI 
was similarly kept in the dark — not consulted about or even told about the NPA. While a 
certain amount of tension has always existed between federal prosecuting and investigating 
agencies, not even informing the FBI about the Epstein NPA seems highly unusual. 
All of these strange facts -- as well as the facts that we are alleging in our crime victims' 
litigation — lead us to think that there was something rotten with the way this case was 
handled. Epstein could have faced years and years in prison for numerous federal sex offenses. 
And yet he managed to contrive to walk away with no federal time at all (and only minimal 
state time). We respectfully ask you to investigate through appropriate and independent 
channels the handling of the Epstein (non)prosecution. 
Thank you in advance for considering this request. I would be happy to provide any 
other additional information that would be useful to you. 
4 
EFTA00231670

3-
EFTA00231671

U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
500 South Australian Ave., 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Facsimile: 
December 5, 2008 
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL 
Brad Edwards Esq. 
2028 
Street, Suite 202 
Hollywood, Florida 33020 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein,. 
Shawna Rivera. and 
Notification of Work Release 
Dear Mr. Edwards: 
By virtue of this letter, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of 
Florida asks that you provide the following notice to your clients, 
, Shawna Rivera, and 
. The U.S. Attorney's Office has learned that Jeffrey Epstein has applied to 
participate in the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office's ("PBSO") work release program, and PBSO 
has granted that application. Mr. Epstein is reportedly working for The Florida Science Foundation 
at 250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1404, West Palm Beach, FL 33401. After work each day, 
Mr. Epstein returns to the Palm Beach County Stockade. While outside the Stockade, Mr. Epstein 
is electronically monitored via a GPS system and an ankle bracelet. Pursuant to the work release 
rules, Mr. Epstein is to go directly from the Stockade to his office, remain at the office throughout 
the work day, and then return directly to the Stockade. 
We regret that we were unable to inform your client of these developments prior to Mr. 
Epstein's release, but our Office was never notified of Mr. Epstein's application, and we only 
learned of his release more than six weeks after he began participating in the program. Should you 
or your client haveiniquestions regarding the work release program, please direct your inquiries 
to Captain David 
, Palm Bcach Sheriff's Office, 561-688-3595. 
Sincerely, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
By: 
oarliSaa 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
EFTA00231672

U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
500 South Australian Ave., 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Facsimile: 
December 11, 2008 
VIA HAND DELIVERY 
Captain David 
Palm Beach Sheriffs Office 
Corrections Division 
3228 Gun Club Road 
West Palm Beach, FL 33406 
Re: 
Work Release Application of Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Captain 
The U.S. Attorney's Office recently learned that Inmate Jeffrey Epstein applied for 
and was approved for participation in the Palm Beach Sheriffs Office's ("PBSO") work 
release program. Through a request for public records, I have received a copy of Mr. 
Epstein's work release file. After doing some Internet research of public records and making 
a few telephone calls, I discovered some inaccuracies and omissions in Mr. Epstein's file that 
I wanted to bring to your attention. During a recent meeting, Roy Black, one of Mr. 
Epstein's attorneys, invited us to share our concerns with PBSO. 
Eligibility for Participation 
I understand that Mr. Epstein would be ineligible for participation in the work release 
program if he committed three violations of F.S.S. 796 within the past five years. Mr. 
Epstein has been charged with and convicted of a felony violation of F.S.S. 796.07. In order 
to be convicted of a felony violation of that statute, one must commit "a third or subsequent 
violation." In other words, Mr. Epstein has committed at least three violations of Section 
796.07, and in his "Alternative Custody Program Placement Synopsis," Mr. Epstein's charges 
are described as "Recommit: Prostitution." 
In addition to those three violations, Mr. Epstein also has been convicted of violating 
F.S.S. 796.03, procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution. Throughout his 
EFTA00231673

CAPTAIN DAVID 
DECEMBER I I, 2008 
PAGE 2 
paperwork, this violation is referred to simply as "prostitution." The charge is not a 
solicitation of prostitution charge, it is a procurement of a minor to engage in prostitution. 
Florida courts have defined the offense as "inducing a victim to engage in sexual activity" 
for money and "persuading, inducing, or prevailing upon a person to do something sexual" 
for financial gain. In other words, the statute addresses the recruiting of minors who have 
not previously been involved in prostitution to engage in sexual activity for commercial gain 
to a recruiter or "pimp"/"madame." The Florida Legislature has acknowledged the 
significant difference between solicitation under F.S.S. 796.07 and procurement of minors 
under F.S.S. 796.03 by requiring persons convicted of violating F.S.S. 796.03 to register as 
sex offenders. The distinction may be meaningful to the victims of Mr. Epstein's offenses, 
who could feel that they are being stigmatized as "prostitutes." 
Inaccuracies and Omission in Work Release Application and Related Documents 
Throughout the records related to Mr. Epstein's work release placement, he is 
alternatively referred to as working for "The Florida Science Foundation" or "self-
employed," and Mr. Epstein lists his salary as $250,000. Mr. Epstein describes himself as 
"returning to work" and "eligible for re-employment" at The Florida Science Foundation. 
Please be advised that the only W-2 that Mr. Epstein provided is from Financial Trust 
Company, Inc., which shows that Mr. Epstein was employed in the U.S. Virgin Islands at a 
salary of $180,785.62, not $250,000. 
Mr. Epstein provided to you no documentation regarding his pre-incarceration 
employment with "The Florida Science Foundation" or its corporate alter-ego, "The 
C.O.U.Q. Foundation, Inc." As you will see, the Foundation, its offices, and Mr. Epstein's 
purported job schedule were all created on the eve of Mr. Epstein's incarceration in order to 
provide him with a basis for seeking work release. 
The Florida Science Foundation was not registered with the State of Florida and had 
no office space or telephone number until after Mr. Epstein was already incarcerated. The 
application filed with the State of Florida and signed under penal of 
r'u b Richard 
Kahn lists Mr. Kahn's and the Foundation's telephone number as 
." That is 
the telephone number of Atterbury, Goldberger and Weiss-one of the law firms representing 
Mr. Epstein. Richard Kahn is a partner at the law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell in New 
York and has no association with the Atterbury firm. 
Checking public records available on the Internet, I located the IRS returns of "The 
C.O.U.Q. Foundation, Inc." for fiscal years 1999 through 2006 (which covers the period 
EFTA00231674

CAPTAIN DAVID 
DECEMBER II, 2008 
PAGE 3 
through 2/28/07).' These sworn filings show that Mr. Epstein worked for the Foundation for 
only one hour per week and earned no compensation. (Sag page 6 of each return.) All of 
these returns were signed under penalty of perjury by either Mr. Epstein or Darren Indyke, 
who is listed in Mr. Epstein's work release file as Mr. Epstein's "supervisor." Mr. Epstein's 
representations concerning his prior work duties and salary may violate the salary and 
employment verification requirements of C.O.P. #926.01(V)(CX7) and (8). 
In response to your requirement of "a detailed work schedule," Mr. Indyke has 
provided the following two sentences: 
[Mr. Epstein's] duties will require him to work six days a week, Monday 
through Saturday, at the Foundation's office located at 250 S. Australian 
Avenue, Suite 1404, West Palm Beach, Florida from the hours of 8:00 A.M. 
to 8:00 P.M. 
As President of the Foundation, Mr. Epstein will be responsible for the general 
oversight and management of the Foundation, and particularly, to seek out, 
evaluate and determine worthy charitable causes to which the Foundation may 
make contributions. 
Mr. Indyke did not disclose that Mr. Epstein only worked one hour per week prior to his 
incarceration and has provided no explanation of why Mr. Epstein could perform these duties 
in one hour per week before he was incarcerated but now needs to spend 72 hours each week 
to do the same job. Again, this appears to be inconsistent with C.O.P. #926.011)(CX7). 
Mr. Indyke has signed the "Alternative Custody Unit Program Agreement" as Mr. 
Epstein's "employer." In that Agreement, Mr. Indyke promises to "notify the Alternative 
'The returns are available online at the following public websites: 
FY2006: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2007/133/996/2007-133996471-0391c8db-F.pdf 
FY2005: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2006/133/996/2006-133996471-02c9625e-F.pdf 
FY2004: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2005/133/996/2005-133996471-02056acf-F.pdf 
. up. 
.guidestar.org/Fmnocumentsi2u04/ 33/996/ZUU4-1339964 /1-1 -k.pdt 
FY 2002: http://www.guidestatorg/FinDocuments/2003/133/996/2003-133996471-1-F.pdf 
FY2001: http://www.guidestar.orgifinDocuments/2002/133/996/2002-133996471-1-F.pdf 
FY2000: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2001/133/996/2001-133996471-1-F.pdf 
FY1999: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2000/133/996/2000-133996471-1-F.pdf 
FYI998: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/1999/133/996/1999-133996471-1-F.pdf 
EFTA00231675

CAPTAIN DAVID 
DECEMBER I I, 2008 
PAGE 4 
Custody Unit immediately if the Participant: (1) Fails to appear for work at the scheduled 
time; and (2) Leaves the place of employment prior to the scheduled time." Both in this form 
and in Mr. Indyke's letter in support of Mr. Epstein's application, Mr. Indyke neglects to 
inform the Sheriff's Office of two significant facts. First, Mr. Indyke lives and works in the 
New York metropolitan area. He likely will not be present at Mr. Epstein's workplace, so 
he may not know if Mr. Epstein "fails to appear for work" or "leaves the place of 
employment." In that event, Mr. Indyke also will not be able to supervise Mr. Epstein's 
actual work to determine whether he is truly doing the work of The Florida Science 
Foundation.2 Second, Mr. Indyke does not "employ" Mr. Epstein. Instead, Mr. Epstein 
"employs" Mr. Indyke. Mr. Epstein is the President and founder of The Florida Science 
Foundation and Mr. Indyke is its Vice President. More importantly, Mr. Epstein is also the 
founder and President of the Financial Trust Company, his for-profit corporation. Mr. 
Indyke is Mr. Epstein's subordinate at that entity as well. 
One of Mr. Epstein's attorneys has suggested that Mr. Epstein is using his time on 
work release to manage investments resulting in investment income of millions of dollars. 
If that is true, then Mr. Epstein is acting outside of the scope of his employment with The 
Florida Science Foundation. Instead, that would be in keeping with Mr. Epstein's work for 
his for-profit corporation, which would inure to the benefit of Mr. Indyke. Because that work 
would result in a financial benefit to him, and because he is Mr. Epstein's subordinate at that 
corporation, Mr. Indyke may be reluctant to inform the Sheriffs Office of this violation of 
the terms of Mr. Epstein's Work Release contract. 
The "references" listed by Mr. Epstein all appear to have the same conflict of interest. 
Mr. Epstein did not list any past or present co-workers, supervisors, or clients. Instead, he 
has listed four attorneys who are currently retained—and paid—by Mr. Epstein. Their attorney-
client privilege obligations might further restrain them from notifying the Sheriffs Office 
if Mr. Epstein was not abiding by the work release rules. 
As I previously mentioned to Colonel Gauger, the decision regarding work release is 
completely within the discretion of the Sheriff's Office. The purpose of this letter is simply 
to provide you with information concerning Mr. Epstein's offenses and his work situation. 
Judge Pucillo, who conducted the change of plea and sentencing, heard the factual proffer 
and imposed Mr. Epstein's sentence. She has not been consulted regarding Mr. Epstein's 
20n the application for registration of the Florida Science Foundation with Florida's 
Department of State, Mr. Indyke lists his true address in Livingston, New Jersey. 
EFTA00231676

CAPTAIN DAVID 
DECEMBER II, 2008 
PAGE 5 
application for work release. I understand that Judge McSorley's standing order states that 
she "takes no position with respect to the eligibility of any inmate sentenced in this Division 
unless specifically stated at time of sentencing." Because of her absence, Judge McSorley 
did not conduct the sentencing and, therefore, did not have the opportunity to weigh any 
objections to work release at that hearing. It is unclear whether Judge Pucillo was aware of 
Judge McSorley's standing order when she imposed sentence. In utilizing your discretion, 
you may or may not choose to consult with the appropriate judge on this matter. 
Request for Notification 
As I had previously asked of Colonel Gauger, I would appreciate if you would keep 
me informed of any changes to Mr. Epstein's release status so that I may fulfill my 
obligations to keep the victims identified through the federal investigation informed of Mr. 
Epstein's status. I have informed all of the known victims of Mr. Epstein of the change in 
his incarceration status and that you are the contact person if they have any questions. Some 
may ask that their locations be amongst the "Exclusionary Zones" programmed into Mr. 
Epstein's GPS unit. If you need their addresses, please let me know. 
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. 
Sincerely, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
By: 
Assistant United States Attorney 
cc: 
Colonel 
I 
EFTA00231677

EFTA00231678

U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
500 South Australian Ave., 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Facsimile: 
December 11, 2008 
VIA HAND DELIVERY 
Captain David 
Palm Beach Sheriff's Office 
Corrections Division 
3228 Gun Club Road 
West Palm Beach, FL 33406 
Re: 
Work Release Application of Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Captain 
The U.S. Attorney's Office recently learned that Inmate Jeffrey Epstein applied for 
and was approved for participation in the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office's ("PBSO") work 
release program. Through a request for public records, I have received a copy of Mr. 
Epstein's work release file. After doing some intemet research of public records and making 
a few telephone calls, I discovered some inaccuracies and omissions in Mr. Epstein's file that 
I wanted to bring to your attention. During a recent meeting, Roy Black, one of Mr. 
Epstein's attorneys, invited us to share our concerns with PIM. 
Eligibility for Participation 
I understand that Mr. Epstein would be ineligible for participation in the work release 
program if he committed three violations of F.S.S. 796 within the past five years. Mr. 
Epstein has been charged with and convicted of a felony violation of F.S.S. 796.07. In order 
to be convicted of a felony violation of that statute, one must commit "a third or subsequent 
violation." In other words, Mr. Epstein has committed at least three violations of Section 
/90.0 1, andin his "Alternative Custody Program Placement Synopsis," Mr. bpstem's charges 
are described as "Recommit: Prostitution." 
In addition to those three violations, Mr. Epstein also has been convicted of violating 
F.S.S. 796.03, procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution. Throughout his 
EFTA00231679

CAPTAIN DAVID 
DECEMBER I I, 2008 
PAGE 2 
paperwork, this violation is referred to simply as "prostitution." The charge is not a 
solicitation of prostitution charge, it is a procurement of a minor to engage in prostitution. 
Florida courts have defined the offense as "inducing a victim to engage in sexual activity" 
for money and "persuading, inducing, or prevailing upon a person to do something sexual" 
for financial gain. In other words, the statute addresses the recruiting of minors who have 
not previously been involved in prostitution to engage in sexual activity for commercial gain 
to a recruiter or "pimp"/"madame." The Florida Legislature has acknowledged the 
significant difference between solicitation under F.S.S. 796.07 and procurement of minors 
under F.S.S. 796.03 by requiring persons convicted of violating F.S.S. 796.03 to register as 
sex offenders. The distinction may be meaningful to the victims of Mr. Epstein's offenses, 
who could feel that they are being stigmatized as "prostitutes." 
Inaccuracies and Omission in Work Release Application and Related Documents 
Throughout the records related to Mr. Epstein's work release placement, he is 
alternatively referred to as working for "The Florida Science Foundation" or "self-
employed," and Mr. Epstein lists his salary as $250,000. Mr. Epstein describes himself as 
"returning to work" and "eligible for re-employment" at The Florida Science Foundation. 
Please be advised that the only W-2 that Mr. Epstein provided is from Financial Trust 
Company, Inc., which shows that Mr. Epstein was employed in the U.S. Virgin Islands at a 
salary of $180,785.62, not $250,000. 
Mr. Epstein provided to you no documentation regarding his pre-incarceration 
employment with "The Florida Science Foundation" or its corporate alter-ego, "The 
C.O.U.Q. Foundation, Inc." As you will see, the Foundation, its offices, and Mr. Epstein's 
purported job schedule were all created on the eve of Mr. Epstein's incarceration in order to 
provide him with a basis for seeking work release. 
The Florida Science Foundation was not registered with the State of Florida and had 
no office space or telephone number until after Mr. Epstein was already incarcerated. The 
application filed with the State of Florida and signed under penal of e .11 
b Richard 
Kahn lists Mr. Kahn's and the Foundation's telephone number as ' 
." That is 
the telephone number of Atterbury, Goldberger and Weiss—one of the law firms representing 
Mr. Epstein. Richard Kahn is a partner at the law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell in New 
York and has no association with the Atterbury firm. 
Checking public records available on the internet, I located the IRS returns of "The 
C.O.U.Q. Foundation, Inc." for fiscal years 1999 through 2006 (which covers the period 
EFTA00231680

CAPTAIN DAVID 
DECEMBER 11, 2008 
PAGE 3 
through 2/28/07).' These sworn filings show that Mr. Epstein worked for the Foundation for 
only one hour per week and earned no compensation. (See page 6 of each return.) All of 
these returns were signed under penalty of perjury by either Mr. Epstein or Darren Indyke, 
who is listed in Mr. Epstein's work release file as Mr. Epstein's "supervisor." Mr. Epstein's 
representations concerning his prior work duties and salary may violate the salary and 
employment verification requirements of C.O.P. #926.01(V)(C)(7) and (8). 
In response to your requirement of "a detailed work schedule," Mr. Indyke has 
provided the following two sentences: 
[Mr. Epstein's] duties will require him to work six days a week, Monday 
through Saturday, at the Foundation's office located at 250 S. Australian 
Avenue, Suite 1404, West Palm Beach, Florida from the hours of 8:00 A.M. 
to 8:00 P.M. 
As President of the Foundation, Mr. Epstein will be responsible for the general 
oversight and management of the Foundation, and particularly, to seek out, 
evaluate and determine worthy charitable causes to which the Foundation may 
make contributions. 
Mr. Indyke did not disclose that Mr. Epstein only worked one hour per week prior to his 
incarceration and has provided no explanation of why Mr. Epstein could perform these duties 
in one hour per week before he was incarcerated but now needs to spend 72 hours each week 
to do the same job. Again, this appears to be inconsistent with C.O.P. #926.01(V)(C)(7). 
Mr. Indyke has signed the "Alternative Custody Unit Program Agreement" as Mr. 
Epstein's "employer." In that Agreement, Mr. Indyke promises to "notify the Alternative 
'The returns are available online at the following public websites: 
FY2006: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2007/133/996/2007-133996471-0391c8db-F.pdf 
FY2005: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2006/133/996/2006-133996471-02c9625e-F.pdf 
FY2004: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2005/133/996/2005- 13399647 l -02056acf-F.pdf 
u3. http.//www.guidestar.org/PinVocumentsf2UU4/133/996/2004-133996471-1-F.pdf 
FY 2002: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2003/133/996/2003-133996471-1-F.pdf 
FY2001: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2002/133/996/2002-133996471-1-F.pdf 
FY2000: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2001/133/996/2001-133996471-1-F.pdf 
FY1999: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2000/133/996/2000-133996471-1-F.pdf 
FY1998: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/1999/133/996/1999-133996471-1-F.pdf 
EFTA00231681

CAPTAIN DAVID 
DECEMBER 11, 2008 
PAGE 4 
Custody Unit immediately if the Participant: (1) Fails to appear for work at the scheduled 
time; and (2) Leaves the place of employment prior to the scheduled time." Both in this form 
and in Mr. Indyke's letter in support of Mr. Epstein's application, Mr. Indyke neglects to 
inform the Sheriff's Office of two significant facts. First, Mr. Indyke lives and works in the 
New York metropolitan area. He likely will not be present at Mr. Epstein's workplace, so 
he may not know if Mr. Epstein "fails to appear for work" or "leaves the place of 
employment." In that event, Mr. Indyke also will not be able to supervise Mr. Epstein's 
actual work to determine whether he is truly doing the work of The Florida Science 
Foundation.2 Second, Mr. lndyke does not "employ" Mr. Epstein. Instead, Mr. Epstein 
"employs" Mr. Indyke. Mr. Epstein is the President and founder of The Florida Science 
Foundation and Mr. Indyke is its Vice President. More importantly, Mr. Epstein is also the 
founder and President of the Financial Trust Company, his for-profit corporation. Mr. 
Indyke is Mr. Epstein's subordinate at that entity as well. 
One of Mr. Epstein's attorneys has suggested that Mr. Epstein is using his time on 
work release to manage investments resulting in investment income of millions of dollars. 
If that is true, then Mr. Epstein is acting outside of the scope of his employment with The 
Florida Science Foundation. Instead, that would be in keeping with Mr. Epstein's work for 
his for-profit corporation, which would inure to the benefit of Mr. Indyke. Because that work 
would result in a financial benefit to him, and because he is Mr. Epstein's subordinate at that 
corporation, Mr. Indyke may be reluctant to inform the Sheriff's Office of this violation of 
the terms of Mr. Epstein's Work Release contract. 
The "references" listed by Mr. Epstein all appear to have the same conflict of interest. 
Mr. Epstein did not list any past or present co-workers, supervisors, or clients. Instead, he 
has listed four attorneys who are currently retained—and paid—by Mr. Epstein. Their attorney-
client privilege obligations might further restrain them from notifying the Sheriff's Office 
if Mr. Epstein was not abiding by the work release rules. 
As I previously mentioned to Colonel Gauger, the decision regarding work release is 
completely within the discretion of the Sheriff's Office. The purpose of this letter is simply 
to provide you with information concerning Mr. Epstein's offenses and his work situation. 
Judge Pucillo, who conducted the change of plea and sentencing, heard the factual proffer 
and imposed Mr. Epstein's sentence. She has not been consulted regarding Mr. Epstein's 
'On the application for registration of the Florida Science Foundation with Florida's 
Department of State, Mr. Indyke lists his true address in Livingston, New Jersey. 
EFTA00231682

CAPTAIN DAVID 
DECEMBER I I, 2008 
PAGE 5 
application for work release. I understand that Judge McSorley's standing order states that 
she "takes no position with respect to the eligibility of any inmate sentenced in this Division 
unless specifically stated at time of sentencing." Because of her absence, Judge McSorley 
did not conduct the sentencing and, therefore, did not have the opportunity to weigh any 
objections to work release at that hearing. It is unclear whether Judge Pucillo was aware of 
Judge McSorley's standing order when she imposed sentence. In utilizing your discretion, 
you may or may not choose to consult with the appropriate judge on this matter. 
Request forNotification 
As I had previously asked of Colonel Gauger, I would appreciate if you would keep 
me informed of any changes to Mr. Epstein's release status so that I may fulfill my 
obligations to keep the victims identified through the federal investigation informed of Mr. 
Epstein's status. I have informed all of the known victims of Mr. Epstein of the change in 
his incarceration status and that you are the contact person if they have any questions. Some 
may ask that their locations be amongst the "Exclusionary Zones" programmed into Mr. 
Epstein's GPS unit. If you need their addresses, please let me know. 
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. 
Sincerely, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
United States Attorney 
By: 
cc: 
Colonel 
I 
Assistant United States Attorney 
EFTA00231683

FBI 
PALM BEACH COUNTY RA 
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN 
31E-MM 
EFTA00231684

EFTA00231685