EFTA00722427

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
MEMORANDUM 
CONFIDENTIAL 
TO: 
ADA Lisa Friel, Chief, Sex Crimes Unit 
ADA Jennifer Gaffney, Deputy Chief, Sex Crimes Unit 
ADA Patrick Egan, Sex Crimes Bureau and Trial Bureau 40 
FROM 
Jay P. Lefkowitz, 
Sandra Lynn Musumeci 
DATE 
October 7, 2010 
SUBJECT: 
SORA Determination for Jeffrey E. Epstein, NYSID # OSI909, 
Supreme Court Case # 30129-2010 
Jeffrey Epstein, a 57-year old financial advisor and philanthropist who maintains his 
primary residence in the U.S. Virgin Islands but owns a vacation home in Manhattan, is required 
to register as a sex offender in New York under SORA by virtue of a single conviction for a 
prostitution-related offense committed in Florida (where he also owns a vacation home) dating 
back to 2005. On June 30, 2008, Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach 
County, Florida under an Information to the charge of Procuring a Person Under 18 for 
Prostitution, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 796.03.1 Mr. Epstein, who has never before been 
convicted of a crime, accepted responsibility for his conduct -- which involved a consensual 
arrangement in which he received massages and engaged in sexual touching in exchange for 
money with M., a young woman over the age of consent under New York law for all but two 
of the fourteen months cited in the Information -- and agreed to serve thirteen months in jail, 
followed by one year of community control in Florida. 
Since his release from incarceration, Mr. Epstein has registered as a sex offender in 
Florida (the state of his offense), as well as in his home jurisdiction of the U.S. Virgin Islands 
and in New Mexico (where he owns a vacation property). Significantly, all of these 
jurisdictions, upon considering the offense and conduct which triggered Mr. Epstein's duty to 
register, determined that Jeffrey Epstein posed a minimal risk to society, and accordingly 
imposed upon him their lowest reporting obligations. (In fact, New Mexico determined that Mr. 
Epstein need not register under that state's sex offender registration law at all.) The low-level 
risk determinations made by these three separate jurisdictions are entirely appropriate, given Mr. 
Epstein's history and personal characteristics, the circumstances of the offense which triggered 
the registration requirement, his acceptance of responsibility, his successful completion of a jail 
Jeffrey Epstein concurrently pleaded guilty to an Indictment charging him with one count of Felony 
Solicitation for Prostitution, Ha. Stat. § 796.07(2)(f), (4)(c). This charge does not involve any sexual contact with 
underage women and is not a registerable offense under Florida or New York law. See Ha. Stat. § 943.0435; N.Y. 
Correction Law § 168-a(2Xa). 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00722427

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
sentence and subsequent supervision in Florida, and the extraordinary improbability that he will 
ever re-offend in any state. 
New York has even less of a basis to adjudge Mr. Epstein as anything other than the 
lowest level offender -- Level 1 under SORA -- than do Florida and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 
Whereas Mr. Epstein maintains his permanent residence in the Virgin Islands and spends most of 
his time there, and Florida was the site of the offense which triggered Mr. Epstein's reporting 
duty under that state's sex offender registration statute, Jeffrey Epstein's duty to register under 
SORA in New York is based solely on the fact that he owns a vacation home here. More 
significantly, as set forth in detail within this memorandum, the sole offense which has triggered 
Mr. Epstein's duty to register under SORA in New York would have been, at most, a 
misdemeanor if committed in New York instead of Florida. Furthermore, there is compelling 
reason to believe that such an offense would not even be registerable under New York law, given 
a lack of evidence about the specific age of the victim at the time of the relevant conduct -- an 
issue that was immaterial under the relevant Florida statute but which is critical to determining 
the applicability of SORA under New York law. Based on all of these factors, Mr. Epstein's 
categorization under SORA should be properly adjudged as Level 1. 
I. 
SORA Is Designed To Impose Reporting Requirements Upon Offenders In 
Proportion To The Threat They Pose To The Public So That They May Be 
Adequately Monitored 
New York's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), Correction Law § 168 et aL is 
intended to impose the most stringent reporting requirements on those sex offenders most likely 
to reoffend and cause the most grave harm to society, while imposing less restrictive (but still 
substantial) reporting obligations on those persons convicted of a qualifying sex offense who 
pose less danger to the People of the State of New York. SORA is not intended to be punitive, 
but rather, is a protective mechanism designed to shield the public from sexual offenders by 
enabling law enforcement officials to monitor offenders in proportion to their dangerousness and 
likelihood to reoffend. Accordingly, the three levels of reporting -- which dictate the depth and 
frequency of an individual's reporting to law enforcement and the degree to which such 
information may be disseminated to the public -- are based upon an assessment of the offender's 
"danger to the community": Level 1 (risk of repeat offense is low), Level 2 (risk of repeat 
offense is moderate), and Level 3 (risk of repeat offense is high). See Correction Law §168-k(2), 
§168-1(I), (2), (3). 
In crafting SORA, the Board clearly contemplated that offenders should be categorized 
based on consideration of two separate, forward-looking factors: "risk of a repeat offense" and 
"threat posed to the public safety." Correction Law § 168-1(5) (emphasis added). Indeed, the 
Commentary to SORA's Risk Assessment Guidelines states this principle explicitly and provides 
instructive elaboration: 
2 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00722428

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
As the Act makes clear, the threat posed by a sex offender depends 
upon two factors: (i) the offender's likelihood of reoffense and (ii) 
the harm that would be inflicted if he did reoffend. Some 
offenders repeatedly reoffend, but the harm they inflict, which not 
insubstantial, is less grave. Others may pose a lesser likelihood of 
recidivism, especially if properly supervised, but the harm would 
be great if they were to reoffend... The guidelines seek to capture 
both these elements -- the probability of reoffense and the harm 
therefrom -- in determining an offender's risk level. It is important 
to note that the risk level seeks to capture not only an offender's 
risk of reoffense but also the harm posed by a particular offender 
should he reoffend. 
Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, Commentary 
(2006) at 2, ¶ 1. Reading between the lines, the Commentary makes clear that the SORA 
Guidelines are intended to differentiate between relative risks posed by those who have 
committed qualifying sexual offenses; designating a person as a Level 1 is not tantamount to 
condoning that person's past misconduct, but merely is a recognition that the person poses a low 
risk of committing future crimes, and any transgressions that such person might commit in the 
future, however improbable, are unlikely to cause the same grave societal harm as, for example, 
a sexually violent rapist. 
In short, the Guidelines make clear that where a person poses a low risk of reoffense and 
where the person's misconduct falls toward the less egregious side of the sexual offense 
spectrum, the proper SORA adjudication is Level 1. As set forth further below, that is precisely 
where Jeffrey Epstein belongs. 
II. 
Jeffrey Epstein Poses Little To No Threat Of Reoffending Or Causing Harm To The 
Public Safety Of The People Of New York 
A. 
Risk of Reoffense 
With respect to the first and primary factor in a SORA assessment, Jeffrey Epstein 
presents little to no risk of committing further sexual offenses -- particularly in New York. 
Indeed, the reasoned opinion of a psychological expert who has worked with Mr. Epstein, the 
measured judgments of law enforcement agencies who have supervised him, and the minimal 
reporting requirements imposed by other jurisdictions exercising authority over him since his 
conviction all support the conclusion that Jeffrey Epstein has demonstrated himself to be a 
person worthy of trust and presenting little to no threat of reoffense. 
First, the decisions made by numerous law enforcement agencies in Florida, where 
Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of the instant offense and served his sentence, as well as the 
outcomes of those decisions, are instructive and lend strong support to the notion that Jeffrey 
3 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00722429

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Epstein poses little risk of reoffense. The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, which had 
custody of Mr. Epstein during his thirteen months of incarceration, approved Mr. Epstein for that 
office's work release program and permitted him to leave the jail and report to work on a daily 
basis from October 2008 until his release in July 2009. See Letter of Deputy K. Smith of August 
12, 2010 (Exhibit A). While serving his year of community control, both the Circuit Court in 
Palm Beach and Mr. Epstein's assigned probation officer granted Mr. Epstein's requests for 
permission to travel briefly outside Florida for business purposes on numerous occasions. See, 
e.g., Order of Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit for Palm Beach County of December 
18, 2009 (Exhibit B) (allowing Epstein to travel overnight on weekdays for business pending 48-
hour notice and approval of his probation officer). Mr. Epstein successfully complied with the 
all of the restrictions imposed on him and completed his incarceration and probation without 
incident. 
Perhaps more significantly, Florida -- the state where Jeffrey Epstein was actually 
convicted of the prostitution offense that obligated him to register as a sex offender under Florida 
law (and as a result of the Florida conviction, to register under New York law) -- designated Mr. 
Epstein as the lower of two levels of sex offender under that state's sex offender registration act. 
See Letter of Jack A. Goldberger to New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, 
August 12, 2010 (Exhibit C); see also Fla. Stat. § 775.21 (Florida sexual predator statute), 
§ 943.0435 (Florida sexual offender statute). Even more tellingly, Florida then imposed upon 
Mr. Epstein the most minimal of reporting requirements under that sex offender designation, 
requiring him to report to Florida authorities only two times per year. See Letter of Jack A. 
Goldberger to New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, August 12, 2010 (Exhibit 
C). 
Similarly, Jeffrey Epstein is registered with the authorities of the U.S. Virgin Islands, 
where he actually maintains his primary residence, under that jurisdiction's Sexual Offender and 
Community Protection Act? See 14 V.I.C. § 1721 et seq.. Notably, the Virgin Islands -- which 
arguably has the greatest incentive to keep a watchful eye on Mr. Epstein, since that is where he 
spends the bulk of his time -- only requires Mr. Epstein to register with authorities once 
annually for the next fifteen years. See 14 V.I.C. § 1724(d), (e). Under the Virgin Island's 
registration scheme, Mr. Epstein qualifies at the lowest level, and accordingly, he is registered as 
a "sex offender," as opposed to a "habitual sexual offender" or "sex predator," which would 
trigger more onerous reporting requirements. See Virgin Islands Sexual Offender/Sexual 
Predator Registration Form, August 9, 2010 (Exhibit D);3 see also 14 V.I.C. §§ 1722(b), 
1724(d). Moreover, the Virgin Islands explicitly mandates that should Jeffrey Epstein move out 
of the U.S. Virgin Islands, he must register his new address with the U.S.V.I. Department of 
2 
For the avoidance of doubt, the U.S. Virgin Islands is one of the principal territories of the United States 
(along with Puerto Rice, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands), and accordingly is a "covered 
jurisdiction" subject to and covered by the federal Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 
U.S.C.A. § 16901 et seq.. 
3 
The attached registration form (Exhibit D), is Mr. Epstein's most recent registration form, filed on August 
9, 2010 when he returned to the U.S. Virgin Islands upon completing his period of community control in Florida. 
Mr. Epstein first registered with Virgin Island authorities upon his release from incarceration. 
4 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00722430

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Justice before leaving, and must also register with his new state of residence within 10 days. See 
14 V.I.C. § 1724(c). In short, the U.S. Virgin Islands, as the jurisdiction with primary oversight 
of Jeffrey Epstein, maintains firm supervision over Mr. Epstein's whereabouts. And in that 
jurisdiction's judgment, Mr. Epstein does not pose sufficient risk of reoffense to merit a high 
level of monitoring. 
Notably, New Mexico (another state where Mr. Epstein owns a vacation home) has 
determined that it will not require Mr. Epstein to register at all under that state's sexual 
offender reporting statute, despite his Florida conviction and the conduct alleged in connection 
therewith. See Letter of Regina Chacon, New Mexico Department of Public Safety to Jeffery E. 
Epstein, August 19, 2010 (Exhibit E); see also NMSA 1978, § 29-11A-3(E). Notwithstanding 
the state's determination that he need not register, Mr. Epstein voluntarily chose to register with 
New Mexico authorities in order to comply with federal requirements under the Sexual Offender 
Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C.A. § 16901 et seq.. In New Mexico, as 
well as all the other jurisdictions where he owns a residence or vacation home, Mr. Epstein has 
demonstrated a commitment to go beyond what is demanded of him to remain in full compliance 
with the law. 
The resoluteness of Jeffrey Epstein's desire and commitment to lead a law abiding life is 
further echoed in the observations and opinion of the clinical psychologist who first evaluated 
Mr. Epstein in May 2006, following his arrest for the instant offense, and who has worked with 
him over the past several years. That doctor, Stephen R. Alexander, Psy.D., has praised Mr. 
Epstein's cooperativeness, self-reflection, and receptiveness to treatment throughout their 
sessions. Drawing from his evaluation and interaction with Mr. Epstein in therapy, as well as his 
own considerable experience as a forensic psychologist, Dr. Alexander opined: 
Relying upon my 25 years of experience as a forensic psychologist 
and the plethora of data gathered by me, I state with confidence 
that Mr. Epstein poses no threat to himself or the community. It is 
abundantly clear that he has learned his lesson and the probability 
of his reoffending is negligible. Mr. Epstein poses no threat to 
either himself or the general community, and he requires no 
additional intervention or treatment for his no-risk/low-risk status 
to be maintained into the future. 
Letter of Stephen R. Alexander, Psy.D. to Jack Goldberger, Esq., August 16, 2010 (Exhibit F). 
Indeed, this has proven to be correct, as Mr. Epstein has had no instances of criminal or sexual 
misconduct whatsoever during the past five years, ever since the time that the Florida matter 
began and Mr. Epstein was put on notice about the illegality of his conduct, despite its 
consensual nature. His consistent and absolute compliance with the law for this five-year period 
is compelling proof that Jeffrey Epstein poses little or no risk of recidivism. 
Finally, Mr. Epstein has a remarkable personal history which further compels the 
conclusion that he is unlikely to ever violate the law again. Discovering a love of math and 
5 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00722431

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
science as a young man, he worked his way up from being a college drop-out from a middle-
class Brooklyn neighborhood to become a highly successful financial advisor, as well as founder 
and patron of the C.O.U.Q Foundation Inc. and Enhanced Education, charitable organizations 
which, among other things, fund numerous philanthropic entities, educational grants and 
activities, as well as medical and advanced scientific research at top universities and academies 
around the world. For well over 50 years, Mr. Epstein has lived, and will continue to live, as a 
productive, philanthropic, and law-abiding member of society, not a recidivist criminal. Indeed, 
Mr. Epstein's guilty pleas to the instant offenses in 2008, when he was 55 years old, mark the 
first and only criminal convictions of Mr. Epstein's life. Mr. Epstein's willingness to 
acknowledge his guilt and agree to leave the comforts of his home to serve thirteen months 
behind bars, followed by a year of community supervision, is a testament to both his acceptance 
of responsibility for his crimes and his motivation to learn from his mistakes. While he 
admittedly lost his way, the harsh lessons of the past few years have, as observed by Dr. 
Alexander, have helped Jeffrey Epstein refocus and recommit to directing his personal energies 
to productive experiences to the fullest extent possible. Mr. Epstein is not in any way a typical 
sex offender, and these personal strengths and attributes distinguish him as someone who is 
extremely unlikely ever to commit another sexual offense. 
B. 
Degree of Harm to Society 
Without minimizing the seriousness of the charges to which Jeffrey Epstein pleaded 
guilty in Florida, it must be noted that sole offense for which Mr. Epstein is required to register 
in New York under SORA -- a June 30, 2008 plea in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, 
Florida under an Information to the charge of Procuring a Person Under 18 for Prostitution, in 
violation of Fla. Stat. § 796.03 -- would have constituted, at most, a misdemeanor if committed 
in New York instead of Florida. Specifically, the nearest cognate crime under New York law in 
2004 (the time of the offense at issue) was Patronizing a Prostitute in the Third Degree, P.L. 
§ 230.04, which only criminalized prostitution between a "john" over twenty-one years of age 
and a prostitute less than seventeen years of age. See P.L. § 230.04, McKinney's Penal Law 
§ 230.04 (2004).4
Perhaps more significantly, because of a critical distinction between the Florida statute to 
which Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty and the New York cognate, it is not even clear that Mr. Epstein 
committed an offense which is registerable under New York law. While the Florida law 
criminalizes patronizing a prostitute who is under the age of eighteen (i.e. 16 and 17 years old), 
the equivalent New York law only encompasses patronizing a prostitute who is under the age of 
seventeen. Here, Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty to an Information that charged him with procuring 
"M.," a woman under the age of 18 years, for prostitution during the period between on or 
about August 1, 2004 and October 9, 2005 (which was the day before AD's 18th birthday). See 
Palm Beach County Information, Case No. 08CF9381 (Exhibit G). Because the Florida 
4 
Penal Law section 230.04 was amended in 2007 to eliminate any particular age parameters, such that it now 
states, "A person is guilty of patronizing a prostitute in the third degree when he or she patronizes a prostitute" 
P.L. §230.04. 
6 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00722432

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
prosecutor had no need to determine whether there was probable cause -- no less "clear and 
convincing evidence" (the standard required to sup
ta SORA adjudication) -- to believe that 
any acts of prostitution occurred specifically when 
M
.
 
was sixteen, versus during the year that 
she was seventeen (since such a distinction is irrelevant under Florida law), there is no reliable 
basis to conclude that Mr. Epstein is even guilty of Patronizing a Prostitute in the Third Degree, 
P.L. § 230.04, under New York law. For that matter, unless it can be prove 
 )y clear and 
convincing evidence that that Mr. Epstein engaged in sexual conduct with Min exchange for 
money specifically during the time that she was 16, Mr. Epstein is not guilty of any registerable 
offense under New York law, and indeed, by the terms of the SORA statute itself, should not be 
required to register. See Correction Law § 168-a(2)(a)(i).5
Indeed, nothing about Jeffrey Epstein's interactions with M. -- other than M.'s age, 
which she concealed from him ]is this correct?] -- suggests dangerousness. The sole conviction 
which now triggers Mr. Epstein's duty to register in New York under SORA stemmed from 
consensual conduct that ended nearly five years ago, when he received massages and engaged in 
sexual touching in exchange for money with •., 
a young woman over the age of consent under 
New York law for all but two of the fourteen months at issue in the Information. Mr. Epstein's 
interactions with M. did not involve assault or violence of any sort, nor did Mr. Epstein ever 
force himself or any particular contact or activity upon M.. At no time (whether before or 
during their interactions) did Epstein exercise any supervisory or other position of authority over 
nor did she suffer from any mental disability, incapacity, or physical helplessness. Instead, 
. voluntarily came to visit Mr. Epstein at his Florida home on various occasions on her own 
accord for the purpose of participating in what she apparently viewed as a lucrative business 
transaction. Indeed, in addition to engaging in sexual conduct for money, M. acknowledged 
that she also encouraged other women to engage in prostitution so that she could also earn 
finder's fees for herself.6
Given all of these considerations, Mr. Epstein's behavior, while perhaps criminal and 
registerable under the laws of Florida, just barely falls within the range of conduct viewed as 
sufficiently harmful to trigger SORA registration requirements here in New York -- if indeed it 
qualifies as registerable at all. At most, Mr. Epstein was guilty of a misdemeanor under New 
York law, and accordingly, his registration obligations under SORA should reflect this relative 
lack of severity of his offense. 
Even under the broader scope of P.L. § 230.04 in effect today, Patronizing a Prostitute in the Third Degree 
is only registerable under SORA where the woman patronized for prostitution is under the age of seventeen. See 
Correction Law § 168-a(2XaXi) (stating that § 230.04 is a registerable offense "where the person patronized is in 
fact less than seventeen years of age"). 
6 
Based on her own account, AD was 17 or IS, and beyond the age of consent under New York law, when 
she engaged in this prostitution recruitment activity. 
7 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00722433

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Ill. 
Under The SORA Risk Assessment Instrument, Jeffrey Epstein Should Be 
Adjudicated A Level I Offender. 
A. 
Based on the Relevant Facts Supported by Clear and Convincing Evidence, 
Jeffrey Epstein Falls Squarely within Level 1 
As set forth in the completed SORA Risk Assessment Instrument on the following two 
pages, a proper calculation of Jeffrey Epstein's risk assessment under SORA, based upon the 
credible evidence of registerable activity that can foreseeably be proven by clear and convincing 
evidence and the offenses for which Mr. Epstein was convicted, places Mr. Epstein squarely 
within the category of Level 1. This is a proper evaluation of the actual risk of reoffense and 
threat to society posed by Mr. Epstein. And not surprisingly, it is entirely in line with the 
evaluations of the other jurisdictions that have already considered Mr. Epstein's risk level under 
their own sex offender reporting schemes. 
For each of the calculations in the following table, a brief explanation of the scoring is 
provided, making reference in Section I, Current Offense, to the relevant aspects of the offenses 
included within the instant disposition. Because Mr. Epstein has no prior criminal convictions or 
acts of sexual misconduct, and does not use (much less abuse) drugs or alcohol, he scores zero 
with respect to Section II, Criminal History. Similarly, given his acceptance of responsibility for 
his crimes, his successful completion of incarceration without incident and full compliance with 
the terms of probation without incident, Mr. Epstein also scores zero for Section III, Post-
Offense Behavior. Finally, Mr. Epstein scores zero for Section IV, Release Environment, as he 
is gainfully employed and lives and works in appropriate environments that do not provide him 
with inappropriate access to minors. None of the overrides set forth in SORA apply to Jeffrey 
Epstein. 
7 
Of course, the assessment in the attached table reflects counsel's best preliminary judgment at this time, but 
in no way should be deemed a concession as to certain facts and SORA calculations or a waiver of any arguments 
that may be made to challenge a risk assessment, as counsel deems appropriate. 
8 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00722434

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
SORA Risk Assessment Instrument for Jeffrey Epstein 
RISK FACTOR 
VALUE 
SCORE 
EXPLANATION 
I. CURRENT OFFENSE(S) 
I. Use of Violence 
0 
There were no credible allegations of forcible 
compulsion, physical injury, or dangerous weapon 
made against Epstein under either of the Florida 
charges for which Epstein was convicted. 
Used forcible compulsion 
+10 
Inflicted physical injury 
+15 
Armed with dangerous 
instrument 
+30 
2. Sexual Contact with Victim 
10 
Epstein scores 10 points for allegations that he 
touched the body of M. during a massage while 
she was still 16. There are no instances or 
allegations of sexual intercourse, criminal sexual act 
("deviate sexual intercourse") or aggravated sexual 
abuse which would be registerable under New York 
law within the either of the offenses for which 
Epstein was convicted. 
Contact over clothing 
+5 
Contact under clothing 
+10 
X 
Sexual intercourse, criminal 
sexual act ("deviate sexual 
intercourse") or aggravated 
sexual abuse 
+25 
3. Number of Victims 
0 
There is only one victim (i.e. woman under the age 
of 17) alleged in connection with the registerable 
crime for which Epstein was convicted. 
Two 
+20 
Three or more 
+30 
4. Duration of Offense Conduct 
with Victim 
0 
There is no credible evidence that Epstein engaged 
in three or more acts of sexual contact with 
over a period of at least two weeks during the time 
when she was under 17, as the registerable offense 
and underlying evidence do not distinguish between 
events occurring when M. was 16 versus 17. See 
Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment 
Guidelines and Commentary, Commentary (2006) at 
10, "Factor 4." 
Continuing course of sexual 
misconduct 
+20 
5. Age of Victim 
20 
Epstein scores 20 points for allegations that he 
procured the prostitution services of-. 
when she 
was under 17 (though even this is arguable, as the 
registerable offense and underlying evidence do not 
identify any acts of prostitution that occurred 
specifically during the two months when.. was 
16, versus during the year that she was 17). 
11 through 16 
+20 
X 
10 or less, 63 or more 
+30 
6. Other Victim Characteristics 
0 
There is no evidence that any of the women whom 
Epstein procured for prostitution suffered from any 
mental disability, incapacity, or physical 
helplessness. 
Victim suffered from mental 
disability or incapacity or from 
physical helplessness 
+?0 
7. Relationship with Victim 
20 
Epstein scores 20 points for allegations that he did 
not know AD prior to procuring prostitution services 
from her when she was less than 17. 
Stranger or established for 
purpose of victimizing or 
professional relationship 
+20 
X 
9 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00722435

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
II. CRIMINAL HISTORY 
8. Age at First Act of Sexual 
Misconduct 
0 
Not applicable. 
20 or less 
+10 
9. Number and Nature of Prior 
Crimes 
0 
Not applicable. There is no credible evidence that 
Epstein has ever been convicted of a crime. 
Prior history/no sex crimes or 
felonies 
+5 
Prior history/non-violent felony 
+15 
Prior violent felony or 
misdemeanor sex crime or 
endangering welfare of a child 
+30 
10. Recency of Prior Offense 
0 
Not applicable. 
Less than 3 years 
+10 
11. Drug or Alcohol Abuse 
0 
Not applicable. Epstein does not drink alcohol or 
use drugs. 
History of Abuse 
+15 
COLUMNS 1-11 SUBTOTAL 
50 
III. POST-OFFENSE BEHAVIOR 
12. Acceptance of Responsibility 
0 
Epstein has fully accepted responsibility for his 
conduct. 
Not accepted responsibility 
+10 
Not accepted responsibility / 
refused or expelled from 
treatment 
+15 
13. Conduct While Confined / 
Supervised 
0 
Epstein successfully completed his one-year period 
of incarceration and one-year period of probation. 
Unsatisfactory 
+10 
Unsatisfactory with sexual 
misconduct 
+20 
IV. RELEASE ENVIRONMENT 
14. Supervision 
0 
Epstein was released from jail with appropriate 
supervision and participated in therapy with a 
clinical psychologist. 
Release with specialized 
supervision 
0 
Release with supervision 
+5 
Release without supervision 
+15 
15. Living / Employment Situation 
0 
Epstein's living and employment situations are 
appropriate, as he does not live or work with or 
around minors. 
Living or employment 
inappropriate 
+10 
COLUMNS 12-15 SUBTOTAL 
0 
COLUMNS 1-11 SUBTOTAL 
50 
TOTAL RISK FACTOR SCORE 
(add 2 subtotals) 
10 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00722436

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
TOTAL RISK FACTOR SCORE 
1 
2 
3 
50 
Level I 013W) 
Level 2 (moderate) 
+75 
to 
+105 
Level 3 (high) 
+110 
to 
+300 
Of course, it bears noting that even should an alternative risk calculation be made under 
the factors set forth by the SORA risk assessment instrument, resulting in a total above the Level 
1 ceiling of 70 points, the SORA statute and Guidelines grant discretion to depart from the 
calculation. In other words, regardless of the actual numerical calculation, the District Attorney 
may ask the Court to exercise its discretion and appropriately designate Mr. Epstein a Level 1 
offender to reflect the negligible risk of future harm that he poses to the community. As noted in 
the Commentary to the Risk Assessment Guidelines: 
The ability to depart is premised on a recognition that an objective 
instrument, no matter how well designed, will not fully capture the 
nuances of every case. Not to allow for departures would, 
therefore deprive the Board or a court of the ability to exercise 
sound judgment and to apply its expertise to the offender. 
Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, Commentary 
(2006) at 4,1 5; see also People v. Ferrer, 69 M.3d 513, 514 (1st Dept. 2010) (observing "the 
risk level designated in the RAI is merely presumptive, and a court may depart from it as a 
matter of discretion") (citing People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 568 n.2 (2009); People v. 
Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 418, 421 (2008)). As noted above, Jeffrey Epstein presents a negligible 
risk of reoffending, and indeed, justice demands that his SORA designation reflect that fact. 
B. 
The Level 3 Calculation by the Board Is Not Supported by Facts or the Law 
Curiously, the reviewer from the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended 
that Jeffrey Epstein be designated a Level 3 offender, notwithstanding the absence of any key 
factors that suggesting that he might pose a dangerous risk of reoffense or significant harm to 
society. Upon closer inspection, the Case Summary accompanying the Board recommendation 
reveals that the reviewer improperly considered and elaborated upon a host of unsupported 
hearsay allegations from an 86-page police report that has been proven materially false in 
numerous key respects and was largely discredited by prosecutors. This is patently improper 
under SORA, as the Guidelines direct that only "reliable hearsay evidence" may be considered 
and points should not be assessed for a factor "unless there is clear and convincing evidence or 
the existence of that factor." See Correction Law §§ 168-d(3), 168-n(3); Sex Offender 
Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, Commentary (2006) at 5, ¶ 7; 
In addition, the SORA Guidelines explicitly provide, "The fact that an offender was not indicted 
11 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00722437

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
for an offense may be strong evidence that the offense did not occur." Sex Offender Registration 
Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, Commentary (2006) at 5, ¶ 7. 
Here, the Board reviewer completely ignored the fact that Epstein was only convicted of 
non-violent offenses related to consensual prostitution activity, and instead scored Mr. Epstein 
for "forcible compulsion" by manufacturing a claim -- not even contained in the police report --
of "forcible rape" of a "16-year-old victim." Significantly, the allegations of this woman -- who 
was never able to state definitively in her discredited account to police that she was under 18 at 
the time she had intercourse with Epstein and who only agreed to speak with detectives in an 
effort to curry favor with prosecutors after she was arrested for drug possession -- were 
encompassed in the single charge of Felony Solicitation for Prostitution, Fla. Stat. § 796.07(2)(f), 
(4)(c) -- an offense which is not registerable under Florida law. See Fla. Stat. § 943.0435. 
Despite the dramatic characterization of these allegations by the Board reviewer, no charge 
alleging of rape or sexual contact with a minor was ever prosecuted in connection with this 
woman -- by the Board's only words, "strong evidence" that such an offense did not occur. Sex 
Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, Commentary (2006) 
at 5, ¶ 7. Similarly, notwithstanding SORA's clear direction about the quantum of evidence 
required to support scoring for a given risk assessment factor, the reviewer scored Mr. Epstein 
for "prior criminal history" while at the same time acknowledging the utter lack of "specific 
information" about an unexplained 1973 non-U.S., potentially non-criminal offense. [Should 
this be omitted?' The reviewer's willingness to assess Mr. Epstein points based on speculation 
that falls far short of "clear and convincing evidence" is at best improper, and at worst, suspect. 
Perhaps more egregious than the reviewer's indifference to the legal standard of evidence 
required to score an offender under SORA is the utter lack of rigor that the reviewer 
demonstrated in analyzing the allegations against Epstein. The "lump it all together" summary 
submitted in support of the reviewer's Level 3 recommendation makes no attempt to separate 
allegations concerning potentially registerable offenses from alleged descriptions of non-violent 
sexual activity among consenting adults. In fact, the vast majority of allegations contained in the 
discredited police report involve women who were aged seventeen and above, or women who 
were unable to specify their ages and/or the timing of certain activities in which they claim to 
have willingly participated. Such allegations certainly are not a proper basis for assessing Mr. 
Epstein's risk level and supposed danger to society for purposes of a SORA determination. 
While case summaries prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders with the knowledge 
that they will be relied on by courts generally constitute "reliable hearsay" in SORA hearings, 
the New York Court of Appeals has held that a Board case summary "may be rejected when it is 
unduly speculative or its accuracy is undermined by other more compelling evidence." People v. 
Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 573 (2009). Here, the case summary prepared by the Board reviewer 
should be summarily rejected as unduly speculative, unreliable, and plainly inaccurate. Indeed, 
the reviewer who completed Mr. Epstein's case summary betrayed an improper bias against what 
the reviewer perceived to be Mr. Epstein's personal -- but legal -- sexual preferences for women 
between the ages of 17 and 20 by offering the inflammatory, groundless, and thoroughly 
subjective contention that "Jeffrey Epstein used his wealth and power" in such a way so that he 
12 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00722438

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
could "take advantage of many teenage girls to satisfy his own sexual perversions." See Case 
Summary at 2. Such skewed, conclusory personal opinion has no place in a legal risk assessment 
instrument. 
In short, the Level 3 recommendation of the Board in this case is legally and factually 
insupportable and should be wholly disregarded. The Board's recommendation completely 
distorts the record and does not reflect an accurate and reasoned evaluation of the actual risk 
posed to the People of the State of New York by Jeffrey Epstein. Mr. Epstein hardly represents 
the "worst of the worst" of sex offenders required to register, and for this reason alone, the 
Board's recommendation should be rejected. 
IV. 
A Designation Of Level I Under SORA Will More Than Adequately Protect The 
People Of New York From Any Negligible Threat Posed By Jeffrey Epstein 
To come full circle, the District Attorney's Office should take comfort that the intentions 
of SORA will be fully realized by imposing on Jeffrey Epstein a Level 1 designation for his 
Florida convictions (recognizing that only one of those convictions required him to register in 
Florida, and even that conviction arguably would not have triggered SORA if committed in New 
York). The touchstone for assigning a proper SORA designation is whether the offender is prone 
to reoffend, such that the offender can be appropriately monitored and that risk of reoffense be 
contained. Here, an evaluation of the relevant factors of Jeffrey Epstein's offenses, coupled with 
information about his personal background and circumstances, should lead to the inescapable 
conclusion that Jeffrey Epstein is not the typical Level 2 or 3 sex offender that the District 
Attorney's Office regularly encounters, nor is he the "wolf in sheep's clothing" who poses a 
latent threat to the unwary citizens of New York or is likely to get lost in the system. Rather, Mr. 
Epstein is an accomplished, mature, financially successful businessman who made bad choices 
that will haunt him for the rest of his days. Moreover, Mr. Epstein is a person who spends little 
time at his New York vacation home and who is already being sufficiently monitored by the 
authorities of the U.S. Virgin Islands this home jurisdiction), Florida, and New Mexico -- all by 
virtue of the fact that he owns property in those places. 
Under New York law, as a Level 1 sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein will be required to 
register his personal information with local New York law enforcement officials, and for a 
period of twenty years, provide annual verification of his residence, make timely updates of any 
change of address, and renew his photograph on file every three years. (At 57 years old, even as 
a Level 1 offender, Mr. Epstein is likely to have to register with authorities in New York for 
most if not all of his remaining years.) In addition, during the period of his registration, law 
enforcement officials will be able to disseminate this personal information about Mr. Epstein as 
they deem appropriate in their discretion. See Correction Law § 168-1(6)(a). Of course, this is 
all in addition to the continued reporting requirements with which Mr. Epstein must comply --
and with which he has been responsibly complying -- in the U.S. Virgin Islands (the jurisdiction 
of his primary residence where he spends the majority of his time), Florida, and New Mexico. 
13 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00722439

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
In short, designating Jeffrey Epstein with Level 1 SORA designation will provide the 
People of New York with full and adequate protection against the virtually non-existent risk of 
reoffense that Jeffrey Epstein poses, particularly given the short amount of time that Mr. Epstein 
spends in the city and in the state. To require him to comply with any more stringent demands 
under SORA would needlessly duplicate -- and indeed, unnecessarily go well beyond -- the 
efforts of jurisdictions having much greater contact with and control over Jeffrey Epstein. In 
addition, designating Jeffrey Epstein as a Level 3 offender would require him to return to New 
York to re-register every 90 days, even if he might not otherwise plan to be in the state, thereby 
causing him actually to spend more time in New York than he ordinarily would. Moreover, 
designating Jeffrey Epstein as anything other than a Level 1 offender would squander the city 
and state's resources -- resources that could be more effectively used monitoring dangerous, 
high-risk sex offenders who are in fact full-time New York residents -- to contain a risk of 
reoffense that Mr. Epstein does not present. 
Imposing the more severe reporting requirements of a higher sex offender risk 
designation upon Jeffrey Epstein would not serve the ends of justice and the protective -- not 
punitive -- goals which SORA is intended to promote. Accordingly, we respectfully ask you to 
follow the lead of the other jurisdictions that have already evaluated Mr. Epstein's offenses --
and all adjudged him to be the lowest level of registrant -- by consenting to designate Jeffrey 
Epstein with the appropriate SORA classification of Level 1. 
14 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00722440