EFTA00727403

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, P.C. 
Sandra Lynn Musumeci 
DATE 
October 7, 2010 
SUBJECT: 
SORA Determination for Jeffrey E. Epstein, NYSID # OSI909, 
Supreme Court Case # 30129-2010 
Jeffrey Epstein is ;4 57-year old financial advisor and philanthropist who maintains his 
primary residence in the U.S. Virgin Islands where he spends the majority of his time. He 
spends -limited time at but-owns-a-vacation homes in Manhattan, New Mexico and Florida. In 
connection with his vacation home in Manhattan, he —has -been advised that he -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 (wherehe-alse-ewris-a-vaeatien-heine)-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 the offense alleged in the Information  his 
conduct -- which involved a consensual arrangement in which, at some unspecified times during 
a fourteen month period alleged in the Information,  he received massages and engaged in sexual 
touching in exchange for money with A.D., a young woman over the age of consent under New 
York law for all but two months of the fourteen month period during which this conduct is 
alleged to have occurred Asut--just-under--1-8-fer--all-but-two-ef-the-fouFteen-inonths—when-the
effeues-eited-in-the-Inferfustien—allegedhi-essucced, - and agreed to a sentence which required 
him to  serve thirteen months in jail, followed by one year of community control in Florida. 
Since his release from incarceration, Mr. Epstein previously registered as a sex offender 
in Florida (the state of his offense) when he was a full-time resident of that state. More 
importantly. Mr. Epstein is registered with the authorities of the U.S. Virgin Islands. where he 
actually maintains his primary residence and spends the majority of his time. He has registered 
Jeffrey Epstein concurrently pleaded guilty to an Indictment charging him with one count of Felony 
Solicitation for Prostitution, Ha. Stat. § 796.07(2Xf), (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 
EFTA00727403

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
and keeps his registration current under that jurisdiction's Sexual Offender and Community 
Protection Act.2 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 Mr. Epstein move out of the U.S. Virgin Islands, he must 
register his new address with the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Justice before leaving, and 
must also register with his new state of residence within 10 days. See 14 V.I.C. e 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. 
In addition to his registration in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Florida. Mr. Epstein is also 
registered in New Mexico, a State which specifically advised Mr. Epstein's counsel that Mr. 
Epstein's registration is not required under New Mexico Law. Sinee-his-release-frem 
where-he-hes-been-teld-that-registfatien-was-get-a-state-Fetiirement-in-his-easer(where-he-eives-a
vacation-property). Significantly, all of all-ec these jurisdictions, upon considering the offense 
and conduct which triggered Mr. Epstein's duty to register, determined that Mr. Jeffrey-Epstein 
posed a minimal risk to society, and accordingly imposed upon him their lowest reporting 
obligations. (In fact, as stated above. -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 the location of-Mr. Epstein's 
primary residence in the United States Virgin Islands. his  history and personal characteristics, 
the circumstances of the offense which triggered the registration requirement, his acceptance of 
responsibility, his successful completion of a jail sentence and subsequent supervision in Florida, 
and the extraordinary improbability that he will ever re-offend in any state. 
Mere-impeFtantlyr  Mr-rEpstein-is-r-egistered-Ns4th-the-agtherities-ef-theWArgin 
Islandsr vehefe-he-astuagy-maintains-his-pfimary-reskleneerNe-kas-Fegistered-and-keeps-bis 
regictration current under that juriedietion's SeKual Offender and Community Protection Act.4
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.. 
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. 
2 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00727404

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
See-Mat-setyrNetably
r  the-Virtifrislands--whielmeguably-has-the-greatest 
ineentive-te-keep-a-watencal-eye-en-MfrEpmeinr  sinee-that-is-wheFe-he-spends-the-halk-of--his 
time—enirrequires-Mr-rEpatein-te-register-witli-ainhenties-anee-annually-fer-the-next-fifteen 
yearsr See-14-a
der--the-V-irgin-Island=s-Fegisnation-sehemer  MfrEpsiein 
qualifies-ai-the-lewest4eyelr  and-aseerdinglyr  he-is-regiateced4S-asen-effender
s-eppiased-ie-a 
"habitual sexual offender" or "sex predator," which would trigger more onerous reporting 
requirements. Sec Virgin Hands Sexual Offender/Sexual Predator Registration Form, August-93
20-1-0-(-Exhibit-B-W-see-alse-1-4-3a40)=Mereeyerr 
theNngin4alanas 
explisidy-fnandates-that-sheold-Jefffey-Epstein-Eneye-out-ef-ine-144,44-014elandsr  he-caust 
nagister--his-Rew-addfess-wah-thWrtin-lslands-lDepar-tinen4-af-Jasiiee-befoFe4eavingr  and 
must-alse-register-with-his-new-stete-eiresinenee-within-1-0-nayarSee-121-1
-1-724(e)r le 
short, the U.S. Virgin Islands, as the jurisdiction with primary oversight of Jeffrey Epstein,
maintains-finn-supetyisien-ever-MfrEpatein1/2 -Nyhereabauisr Ana-in-thet-jurisdietienss-judgrnenh 
risk
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 the U.S. Virgin Islands and  Florida-end 
the-134,-Virgin4alands. 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, Mr. 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-, if required to register at all, should -we believe should-be 
be properly adjudged as no higher thant- Level 1. 
Without minimizing the seriousness of the charges to which Mr. 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 
For (ho avoidenee-of doubt. the U.S. Virgin liuIond in one of the prineipel-4erritorioa of the-United States 
calong-witli-Pliene-Rice—Goam—osawkerisan-Samea—anchthe-Isieftheco-K4ariarka4slands4—and-acooRtiogly-is-acovered 
5—The-attashed-registrationawm-(Exhibit-D)—is-Mr-rEpstein4-most-ivrant-pegistration-ferm—fied-onaugus4 
9-2040-witen-Ite-retttroed-te-the-irkFrsiirgin4slarrels-upoweentletiftt his-peried-ofeonitneftitli-eentral-in-Fler-ido, 
MrrEpatein first registered with Virgin4slend-euthorities-upen-his-releese-froni-ineareeretion, 
3 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00727405

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
between in-2004 and 2005 (the alleged time period 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 
sc 230.04 (2004).6
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 
"A.D.." 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 
prosecutor had no need to determine whether there was probable cause -- let alone  ne-1030-"clear 
and convincing evidence" (the standard required to support a SORA adjudication) -- to believe 
that any acts of prostitution occurred specifically when A.D. 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 proven by clear 
and convincing evidence that that Mr. Epstein engaged in sexual conduct with A.D. in 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).7
Indeed, nothing about Mr. Jeffrey-Epstein's interactions with A.D. -- other than A.D.'s 
age, which she concealed from him and has not been established to be under the age of consent 
under New York law fis-this-eerreeal-YES--- even suggests any degree 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.D., a young woman over the age 
of consent under New York law for all but two of the fourteen months at issue and never clearly 
specified in the Information. Mr. Epstein's interactions with A.D. did not involve assault or 
violence of any sort, nor did Mr. Epstein ever force himself or any particular contact or activity 
upon A.D.: At no time (whether before or during their interactions) did Epstein exercise any 
supervisory or other position of authority over A.D., nor did she suffer from any mental 
disability, incapacity, or physical helplessness. Instead, A.D. voluntarily came to visit Mr. 
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. 
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(2)(a)(i) (stating that § 230.04 is a registerable offense "where the person patronized is in 
fact less than seventeen years of age"). 
4 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00727406

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
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. 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 even 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. 
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 
As you are well aware, New York's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), Correction 
Law § 168 et at 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: 
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 
5 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00727407

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
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-Mr. 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, particularly the jurisdiction of his primary residence all support the conclusion that 
Jeffrey-Mr. Epstein has demonstrated himself to be a person worthy of trust and presenting little 
to no threat of reoffense. 
The resoluteness of Mr. Epstein's desire and commitment to lead a law abiding life is 
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 
6 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00727408

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
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 
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. 
In addition, First, the decisions made by numerous law enforcement agencies in Florida, 
where Jeffrey-Mr. 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 
ref 
Mr. 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 Oeffice'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 Sstate where Jeffrey Epstein was actually 
convicted of the prostitution offense that obligated him, when he was full—time resident of that 
State. -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 Sstate'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-, to be followed if,; and only if, he returned as a full—time resident. 
7 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00727409

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Currently. if he stays more than five days at 
he has been asked to call to notify the 
Ssheriff's Oeffice-te-netify-them, nothing mu.. HeMr. Epstein has been told that he need not 
register again unless he is actually present in Florida there-as a resident during the month of his 
birth.under-that-sex-effender-designatieri- #le-ilf he moved back full time to Florida-, which he 
is not intending to do, Mr. Epstein -would be -Hquiring-hierequired -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). 
SintilerlyMore importantly-, Jeffrey-Mr. Epstein is registered with the authorities of the 
U.S. Virgin Islands, where he actually maintains his primary residence. —He has registered and 
keeps his registration current his-registmties—under that jurisdiction's Sexual Offender and 
Community Protection Act.8 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);9 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. Virgin Islands 4, 
Department of 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 Sstate where Mr. Epstein owns a vacation home) has 
determined that it will not require Mr. Epstein to register at all under that Sstate'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 Sstate'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 
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.. 
9 
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. 
8 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00727410

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
demonstrated a commitment to go beyond what is demanded of him to remain in full compliance 
with the law. 
Curiously, the reviewer from the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended 
that Mr. Jeffrey-Epstein be designated a Level 3 offender, notwithstanding the absence of any 
key factors that even remotely 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 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 Mr. 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 Mr. 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)(0, (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 scrape 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 5,117. 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. -Wtheffid-this-be-entitte47-1—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 Mr. Epstein. The "lump it all together" 
summary submitted in support of the reviewer's Level 3 recommendation makes no attempt to 
9 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00727411

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
separate allegations conceming_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 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 
uninsupportable 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 hfcreyMr. 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. 
The-reselaterress-ef-Jeffrey-Epmein1/2 -elesife-and-cemmitment-te-learl-a-lay.Labieling-lice4 
further-eeheetl-in-the-ebsemaiens-and-epinien-ef--the-elinieal-psyehelogistawhe-first-evaltrateel 
MfrEpstein-in-May40067-follewingais-arrest-fec-the-inetan‘effeneer and-whe-kas-werked-with 
him-evec-the-past-sevecal-yeaffirThat-deeterr StephenarAlexanderr P
Faised-Mft 
Epstcin's cooperativeness, self reflection, and rcccptivencso to treatment threaghetttthek 
sessiens,Drawing-frem-his-evaluatien-and-interaetien-with-MfrEpstein-in-thempyr as-wel4-as4is 
own-sensidefahle-expecienee-as-a-fereesis-psyshelegistr DfrAlexander-epineth 
Relying upon my 25 . 
of experience an a f  rensic p ehelegist
and the pletho... of data gathered b y me T state with confdence
that-MfrEpsteifrpeses-ne-threet-te-himself -0f-the-eemmunityr It-is 
abundantly elear-that-he-hasieamedaifrleg5en-aad-the-prebability 
of -his-reeffendin
egligibleMfrEpstein-peses-ne-threat-te 
either--himself-of-the-geneFal-sommunityr  and-he-requires-no 
10 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00727412

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
atitii+iontil-interyention or treatinent-fer-his-ne-welettew-Ftek-Thetas 
te-be-maintainetl-inte-the-futute, 
etter-ef--Stephen-Rr Atettanflerr PerDrto-Jaelt-Goldberger-7 Esr2otugust-I-6720-1-0-(-Etthibit-F)7 
II:Klee/dr  this-ltes-preven-te-be-eeffeetr as-/V-PrEpstein-hes4tiffine-instanees-ofethififfabor-sernoi 
miseenduet4vhatseeveduring-the-past-fiveyearsr e*er-4nee-the-time-that-the-Florida-raatter 
began-Em€1441-rEpstein-vetts-put-en-netiee-about-the-illegality-efitis-eemittetr  despite-its 
eensectsual4mtur-er His-eensistent-and-abselitte-eentplianee-with-the4aw-fec-this-five-year--peried 
is-eempekling-preef-that4effrey-Epetein-peses-littletne-risleof-reeklivient 
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 
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 Tthe 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. 
Br 
Degree-of-thttsm-te-Seeiety 
Witheut-litiflifliirthig-the-setiousness-of-the-ellarges-te-whia-Jefftest-Eptiteitt-pleatle4 
,uilty in Florida, it must be noted that sole offense for which Mr. Epstein is required to register 
in-New-York-untler-SORA 
a June-30;-2008-plea-in-the-Gireuit Court-fofrPalm Butch Courtly;
Florida under an Information to the charge of Procuring a Person Under IS for Prostitution, in 
in-New-Yerk-insteati-ef-Refidar—Speeificallyrthe-neafest-eognate-eFime-under-New-YeFIE-law-in 
2001 (the time of the offense at issue) was Patronizing a Prostitute in the Third Degree, P.L. 
*-2-30,047 whieh-only criminttlized-prestifution-betwecn a lehur-over-t-wertiy-onetears-of-age 
II 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00727413

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
and -a-prostitute-less-than-seventeen )cars-ePagc. Sec P.L. §-2-30.04A4e/Ciftney's Pcnal-Law 
230.0i (2001),I° 
Perhapsinere-sigitiftettittlyr beeittrie-eFa-erifieitl-distirtetion-between-the-Fleridit-seature-te 
whieh-Mfr E-peteiri-pleeelerl-guitty-arki-the-Neve-Yerk-eegaater  it-is-riet-even-elear-that-Mfr Epstein 
committed an offense which is registerable under Ncw York law. While the Florida law
critninalistes-parronithig-a-prostitute-who-is-uridethe-itge-eleighteen-fiTerki-antl-1-7-years-e14 
ihe-equivalent-New-Yer-Ic-lam“ehhfreheempasses-patrenizing-a-prestitute-whe-i-s-marieerke-age-of 
seventeen=Herer MfrEpsiein-plethled-gtrilty- te-eti-kifermatien-thar-ehttrgedAtini-with-preeuring 
; 6,71;
a-wenian-uader-the-age-ef--1-8-yeeffir for-prestitutien4ufing-the-perierl-between-en-Or 
about August I, 2001 and October 9, 2005 (which was the day before AD's 18th birthday). See
Pahri-Reiteh-GettnPrhifermetienr  Gase-Ner 08GF9-38-1-(-Erthibit-6)r Beeettse-the-Flethla 
preseeuter-hakl-ne-neekl-te4etermine-whether-there-was-prehable-eause—ne-lesselear-and 
eenvirteiftt evitleiteeethe-srenthiril-requireel-te-stippert-a-SePotiradjutheatien)---te-believe-thar 
any-aets-ef-prestiturien-ec-eurreil-speeifieally-whenaa,..vas-serteerir ver-sus-cluriag-the-year-thar 
she-was-iieventeen-(sinee-seh-a-Elistirietieri-is-irrelesant-warler--Plerifla4awkthere-is-RO-retiahle 
basis-to eerielutle-thatailfrEpstein-is-even guiltyofParrenizirita-Prestirute-in-tlic Third Degree;
P.L. § 230.01, under Ncw York law. For that matter, unless it can be proven by clear and
eertvirteing-evitlenee-thatihrtEMfr Epskeiri-engtiged-in-sexual-eenclitet-with
eehange-for 
meney-specWing-the-time-that-she-was-1-6r  MfrEpstein-k-het-guilty-efantregititerable 
eff-ense-under--Nev-Y-Ork-lav
l-iRdeedr  by-the-terms-ef-the-S9R-A-srarote-itself-rsheuld-net-be 
reeptired-to-register,See-Gerreetieri-Lew-§ 168-a(2-0)(#44
Indeed, nothing about Jeffrey Epstein's interactions with A.D. 
other than A.D.'s age,
whieh-ste-eerteeitied-FremAtirri-fis-this-eerreee-h—guggests-elengereasftessr-The-sele-eertvierien 
consensual conduct that ended nearly five years ago, when he received massages and engaged in 
sexual-totiehirig-in-emehimge-fer-money-with-AvD., a-young-woman-ever-t-he-age-of-conseni-under 
New York law for all but two of the fourteen months at issue in the Information. Mr. Epstein'r 
interactions with A.D. did not involve assault or violence of any sort, nor did Mr.  Epstein-ever 
foree-himself-er-arry-paAieuler-eenteet-eaeti*ity-upen-ATD,At-rre-time-(whether-befere-of 
fluFing-their-4citeraetieris-1-4id-Epstein-exerei-se-any-supepeisepy-er-ether-perritien-ef-autherity-ever 
iiirD
ter-tlid-she-stiffer-freiri-any-mental-disabilityr  ifietipaeityr  Or-physieeMielplessriessAristeed;
ATDrvelufrtaFilfeame-teasifrit-Mfrapstein-at-his-Plefiek-heme-enamfietts-eseasiens-en-her-eyen 
aeseml-fer-the-purpose-ef-participating4-what-she-apparern4y-vieweel-as-a4uerative-131:14ReerS 
transaetienr Indeedr iwarklitieri-te-engeging-in-seyaia4-eenduet-fer-trierieyr  ATDraekriewle4geri 
10---Penal-Law-seetion-2-.30:04-was-.. amended-in-2007-to-elitninate-any-partieular-age-parametersr sueh-that-it-now 
mates
srpokson-ia-gui4ty-offa4FORitting-a-prostitukz-iit-the4hird-degme-whon-he-or-the-patron4es-a-pr.ostitute: 
V.L. §230.04. 
1I—Even-under-the-broader-seopeof-P,L. § 2-3O44-in-etleet-today. Patronizing a Prostitute-in-the-Third-Degree 
only rogictarabte under SORA whore the woman patronized for prostitutioni -un4er-the-age-e4-se' '
'mSee 
Correction Law• § 168 a(2)(aXi) 
dud 
230.01 is a ret,ist:- le oftinse 
faet-laso-than-seventeen-years-of-age: 
12 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00727414

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
that-she-also-encouraged-other-women to engage iil prostitution-so-that-she-eould-also-earn 
Cinder's fees for hersc1112
Given-all-of-these-eensiderittiertsr MfrEpstein2s-behavierr while-perhaps-erintiftitlimel 
registeFahle-uader-the-laws-ef-F1efidarium-hafely-fails
ithin-the-fange-ef-c-enduet-viewed-as 
:;ufficicntly harmful to trigger SORA registration requirements here in New York 
if indeed it 
quidifies-as-registereble-at-all,At-mestr  Mr. Epstein was-guilty of a misdemeanor-under New 
laek-ef-sevefitr of-his-effenseT 
III. 
Under The SORA Risk Assessment Instrument, Jeffrey Epstein Should Be 
Adjudicated A Level 1 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 
evidence13 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, particularly the U.S. Virgin Islands, the jurisdiction of his 
primary residence, 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 
she-engaged-M-this-prostimtiowreeruittnent-aetivity, 
13 
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. 
13 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00727415

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
with inappropriate access to minors. None of the overrides set forth in SORA apply to Jeffrey 
Epstein. 
14 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00727416

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 A.D. during a massage while 
Contact over clothing 
+5 
she was under the age of 17 (though even this is 
Contact under clothing 
+10 
X 
arguable. as the registerable offense and underlying 
Sexual intercourse, criminal 
sexual act ("deviate sexual 
intercourse") or aggravated 
sexual abuse 
+25 
evidence do not identify any acts of prostitution that 
occurred specifically during the two months when 
A.D. was 16. versus during the year that she was 17). 
while-she-wee-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. 
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 A.D. 
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 A.D. 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 A.D. 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 A.D. 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 
+20 
7. Relationship with Victim 
20 
Epstein scores 20 points for allegations that he did 
not know AD prior to procuring prostitution services 
Stranger or established for 
+20 
X 
15 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00727417

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
purpose of victimizing or 
professional relationship 
from her when she was less than 17 .(again. 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 
A.D. was 16, versus during the car that she was 17)_ 
16 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00727418

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) 
17 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00727419

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
TOTAL RISK FACTOR SCORE 
50 
1 
2 
3 
Level 1( 
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 Commentaiy, Commentary 
(2006) at 4, ¶ 5; see also People v. Ferrer, 69 A.D.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- Mr. 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 
Cur-ieuslyr  the-FEwiewer-frem-the-Beard-ef-ExamineFs-ef--Sex-Offenderreeemmended 
that-Jeffrey-Epstein-be-designated-e-L-evel-3-effendefr  netwithstanding-the-absenee-aany-key 
faetecs-that-suggesting-that-he-might-pese-a-dangere
fisk-ef-Feeffentie-Or-signifleafit-kam-te 
geeiety=l4pen-e4eser-inspeetienr the-C-ase-Sufamffr aeeempanying-the-Beard-reeetitmendatien 
reyeals-that-the-Feviewer-impreper-treensidered-and-etabefated-upen-a-hest-ef--untiuppeFted 
hearsarallegatiens-freFn-an-86-page-peliee-repeft-that-kas-been-pFeven-FnateFie*fatse-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-peints-S1441:144-FiShe-assessekl-fer-a-fantefunless-there-inaaFankl-nenvineingevielenee-Of 
Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentaiy, Commentary (2006) at 5,117;
18 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00727420

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
In-additiettr the-SORA Guidelines explicitly prov 
"The-faet-that-an-efferttler-was-not-intlicted 
for an offence may be strong evidence that the offense did not occur." Sex (Vender Registration 
4e6.—M5k-Atswesstnetn-GtEidelittes-and-G9mtnentaryreetitinentety+20G6)-itt-57$47 
Herer  the-Board-reviewer-eompletety-ignered-the-faet-that-gpstein-was-enly-eenvieted-of 
non-*ittlent-ogenses-retated-te-consettsual-prestitution-aeli
nd-insteatl-seeFedailfrEpstein 
fo -r' foreible-compulsion=by-manufactuFing-a-claim—net even contained in-the-potiee-repeft 
of "forcible rape" of a "16 year old victim." Significantly, the allegations of this woman 
who
was-ftever-abte-te-stale-deftnitively-i.n-her-diseredited-aeeount-te.-poliee-thttEshe-wtts-under-H1-
the-finte-she-h&I-intereouFse-with-Epstein-and-whe-enty-agreed-te-spealowith-tleteetives-in-an 
effek-te-ouppy-favor-with-preseoutos-afIer--she-yeas-afFested-for--dnag-posaession—were 
eneempassed-in-the-single-charge-ef-Fektny-Solitittnien-fer--11Fostitutionr fle,Stains-796707(2)(1)7
(4)(c) 
an offense which is not registerable under Florida law. See Fla. Stat. § 913.0135. 
Despile-the-drematie-ehantetetitatiort-ef-these-attegatiens-brthe-Beard-reviewerr  ne-eharge 
alleging-of-rape-oesennal-eentaet-with-a-miner-was-ever-pfeseetned-in-eonneetien-with-this 
weinan—by-the-Bear41Is-efily-wecds
tong-evidenee=that-suek-an-effense-did-not-aeeur,See 
Offritder-Registrenion-74eitRisk-ktsew.rment-Guitielinentnd-Commenethyr eemfrientiwy-(-2006) 
Similarly
feqnired-io-suppoti-seoeittg-fot-a-given-risk-assessntent-faeterr the-reviewer-seofed-Mfr Epstein 
lot pFier-C-Itialifkal-historya-while-at-the-same-tinte-aeknowtedging-the-utter-laelt-ef 4peeifte 
information" about an unexplained 1973 non U.S., potentially non criminal offense. IShould 
this-be-ontitted-Wthe-reviewerls-willingness-te-assess-MfrEpstein-points-based-espeeulation 
that-fetts-far-shoft-ofelear--and-con*ineing-e*klenee=is-at-best-intproperrand-at-werstr auspeet, 
required-te-seere-an-offender--under-SOPooris-the-utter-daeloef-Figeethat-the-reviewer 
demonstrated in analyzing the allegations against Epstein. The "lump it all together" summary
subittitted-in-support-of-the-reviewSs-Level-3-Feeeminentlatkm-makes-no-attempt-lo-separate 
allegations-coneenting-petentially-Fegisterable-offenses-from-alleged-elesenptions-of-lieli-,4elent 
diseredited-petiee-repo#4nvolve-wernen-whe-weFe-aged-se*enteen-and-abo*erer--weinen-whe 
yieFe-unabte-te-speeify-their-ages-andieF414e-timing-of-eeFtain-acti*ities-in-whieh-they-elaint-te 
have-willingly-partieipated,Such-allegatierts-certainly-ace-not a-proper-basis-for-assessing-Mr7 
While-ease-santotafies-prepared-by-the-Beard-of-Faxaminets-of-Sex-Offenelefs-with-the4ntowledge 
that-they-will-be-retied-en-by-eenr4s-geneFally-constinderetiable-hearsay=in-SOIWIteaFings7
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 eompelling evidenee
ple-* 
Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 573 (2009). Here, the case summary prepared by the Board reviewer
should4e-aumntapi4.frrejecAed-as-unduly-speentativer tanteliabter and-plantly-inaceurate,indeeth 
the-reviewer-whe-eempleted-MfrEpsteinls-ease-summaff-betreyetl-an-intpfoper-bies-against-wkat 
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-inflantinateenr-eundlead-thomughly 
19 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00727421

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
subjeetive-eentention-that-2Jeffrey-Epstein used his wealth 
and l)OWr el. in sueh-a-way-se-that-he 
could - take advantage of many teenage girls to satisfy his own sexual perversions." Sec Case 
instftinient7 
short, the Level 3 recommendation of the Board in this case is legally and factually
insupponttble-and-should-be-whelly-disregttr
e-Beardls-Feeentmendatien-eempletely 
distorts the record and does not reflect an accurate and reasoned evaluation of the actual risk 
posed-te-the-Peapletf-the-Statetf-New—Yer-k-brJeffrey-EpsteinMfr Epstein-hafdirrepresettts 
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 Mr. 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 Mr. Jeffrey-Epstein's offenses, coupled 
with information about his personal background and circumstances, should lead to the 
inescapable conclusion that Jeffrey- Mr. 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 limited  the-time at his New York vacation home and who is already being sufficiently 
monitored by the authorities of the U.S. Virgin Islands (his 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  Mr. 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. 
20 
K&E 17760332.3 
EFTA00727422