EFTA00230208

By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read 
and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-
Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. 
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
Dated: 
 
By: 
Dated: 
Dated: 
Dated:q-Ay-- 07—
Arillille
MiliC
AS 
US. ATTORNEY 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
GERALD LEXCOURT, ESQ. 
COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
ESQ. 
ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
Page lot 7 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013403 
EFTA00230308

IN RE: 
INVESTIGATION OF 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
I 
ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT 
IT APPEARING that the parties seek to clarify certain provisions of page 4, paragraph 7 
of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (hereinafter "paragraph 7"), that agreement is modified as 
fol lows: 
7A. 
The United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility 
for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting 
the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. if the 
United States elects to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the 
United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney 
representative suggested by the independent third-party prior to the final designation of 
the attorney representative. 
713. 
The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party 
regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to 
pay such attorney representative his or her regular customary hourly rate for representing 
such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph C, infra. 
7C. 
Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney 
representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not 
obligate Epstein to pay the foes and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus, 
if after consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative elects to file a 
contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested 
remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the rods of the attorney 
representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable 
attorneys fees and costs such as those contained ins 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney 
representative, shall cease. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013404 
EFTA00230309

By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and 
explained to him. Epstein, hereby, states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-
Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. 
It ALEXANDER ACOSTA 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
Dated:  /O/.30 /O7 
Dated:  1i 2  , lei-
Dated: 
Dated: 
GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. 
COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
ESQ. 
Al WILN,bY FOR Jbll, l 
STEIN 
eYEP 
Case No. 0840736-CV-MARRA 
P-0I3405 
EFTA00230310

By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and 
explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-
Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. 
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
Dated:  
40/07 
Dated: 
Dated: 
By: 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
RALD LUC° RT ESQ. 
COUNSEL TO JEFFR Y EPSTEIN 
, ESQ. 
ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013406 
EFTA00230311

••••••••4 
By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and 
explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-
Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them. 
Dated: /O /3 0/017 
Dated: 
Dated: 
Dated: 1,(k_11 -3"" 
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. 
COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
LILLY A 
ANCHEZ, ESQ: 
ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013407 
EFTA00230312

U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
R ALEXANDER ACOSTA 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
DELIVERY IlY FACSIMILE 
Fowler White Burnett, PA 
1395 Brickell Ave, 14th Floor 
Miami, FL 33131 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Ms. Sanchez: 
99 Pi E 4 Styli 
Sham FL HI 12 
(105) 961.9100 Telephone 
0051 30-6444 • Form,* 
December 19, 2007 
write to follow up on the December I4th meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein 
prosecutors, as well as our First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself.I I 
write to you because I am not certain who among the defense team is the appropriate recipient of this 
letter. I address issues raised by several members of the defense team, and would thus ask that you 
please provide a copy of this letter to all appropriate defense team members. 
First, I would like to address the Section 2255 issue! As I stated in my December 4th letter, 
my understanding is that the Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr. 
Epstein responds to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal 
liability. Under this Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections 
I Over the past two weeks, we have received several hundred pages of arguments and exhibits from defense counsel. 
This is not the forum to respond to the several items raised, and our silence should not be interpret as agreement; I 
would, however, like to address one issue. Your December I I1 letter states.that as a result of defense counsel 
objections to the appointment process, the USA() proposed an addendum to the Agreement to provide for the use of 
an independent third party selector. As I recall this matter, before I had any knowledge of defense counsel 
objections, I suo :porde proposed the Addendum to Mr. Le0cowitz at an October meeting in Palm Beach. I did this 
in an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a litigious selection process. It was only eller I proposed this 
change that Mr. Lelkowitz raised with me his enumerated concerns. 
2 Section 2255 provides that: "(ajny person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of 'enumerated sections 
of Title I8) and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation . . . may sue in any appropriate United States 
District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the sun. including a 
reasonable attorney's fee." 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013408 
EFTA00230313

of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that the Mr. Epstein satisfies 
three general federal interests: (1 ) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registerable" state offense; (2) 
that this state plea include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term of imprisonment; and (3) 
that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims. 
With this in mind, I have considered defense counsel arguments regarding the Section 2255 
portions of the Agreement. As I previously observed, our intent has been to place the victims in the 
same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less. 
From our meeting, it appears that the defense agrees that this was the intent. During the course of 
negotiations that intent was reduced to writing in Paragraphs 7 and 8, which as I wrote previously, 
appear far from simple to understand. I would thus propose that we solve our disagreements over 
interpretations by saying precisely what we mean, in a simple fashion. I would replace Paragraphs 7 
and 8 with the following language: 
"Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in 
Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under 
Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein been tried federally and convicted of an 
enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall 
provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an 
Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority 
interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if 
any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these 
identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been 
convicted at trial. No more; no less." 
Second, I would like to address the issue of victim's rights pursuant to Section 3771. 1 
understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of time and place of Mr. 
Epstein's state court sentencing hearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and 
the statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to defense as a courtesy. In 
addition, First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the letter several 
edits that had been requested by defense counsel. I agree that Section 3771 applies to notice of 
proceedings and results of investigations of federal crimes as opposed to the state crime. We intend 
to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution, as required by law. We will defer to the 
discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the 
state proceedings, although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes. 
Third, I would like to address the issue raisedregarding Florida Statute Section 796.03. At 
our meeting, Professor Dershowitz took the position that Mr. Epstein believes that his conduct does 
not satisfy the elements of this offense. His assertion raises for me substantial concerns. This Office 
will not, and cannot, be a party to an agreement in which Mr. Epstein pleads guilty to an offense that 
he believes he did not commit. We are considering how best to proceed. 
2 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013409 
EFTA00230314

Finally, I would like to address a more general point. Our Agreement was first signed on 
September 24ih, 2007. Pursuant to paragraph I I, Mr. Epstein was to use his best efforts to enter his 
guilty plea and be sentenced no later than October 26, 2007. As outlined in correspondence between 
our prosecutors and defense counsel, this deadline came and went. Our prosecutors reiterated to 
defense counsel several times their concerns regarding delays, and in fact, asked me several weeks 
ago to declare the Agreement in breach because of those delays. 1 resisted that invitation. 1 share 
this fact because it is background to my frustration with what appears to be an I I'" hour appeal, 
weeks before the now scheduled January 4th plea date. 
This said, the issues raised are important and must be fully vetted irrespective of timeliness 
concerns. We hope to preserve the January 4th date. I understand that defense counsel shares our 
desire not to move that appearance and will work with our office to expedite this process over the 
next several days. With this in mind, and in the event that defense counsel may wish to seek review 
of our determinations in Washington D.C., I spoke this past Monday with the Assistant Attorney 
General Fisher, to inform her of a possible appeal, to ask her to grant the potential request for review, 
and to in fact review this case in an expedited manner to attempt to preserve the January 4th plea date. 
I want to again reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a 
defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial, 
and he should do so if he believes that he did not commit the elements of the charged offense. 
I will respond to the pending issues shortly. In the interim, I would ask that you 
communicate your position with respect to the sections 2255 and 337 I issues as quickly as possible. 
Sincerely, 
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
mom
cc:
Assistant Attorney General 
First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
AUSA A. 
3 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013410 
EFTA00230315

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
Case No: 
18 U.S.C. § 371 
18 U.S.C. § 1591(aX1) 
18 U.S.C. § 1591(aX2) 
18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) 
18 U.S.C. § 2423(e) 
18 U.S.C. § 2423(d) 
18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) 
UNITED STATES RAMERICA 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Defendants. 
JNDICTMENT 
The Grand Jury charges that: 
BACKGROUND 
At all times relevant to this Indictment: 
1. 
Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN employed defendants 
a/lc/a 
" and 
o perform, 
among other things, services as personal assistants. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013411 
EFTA00230316

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
Case No: 
18 U.S.C. § 371 
18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(I) 
18 U.S.C. § 1591(aX2) 
18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) 
18 U.S.C. § 2423(e) 
18 U.S.C. § 2423(d) 
18 U.S.C. § 2423(6) 
UNITED STATES CRAMERICA 
vs. 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
a
an 
, 
Defendants. 
A 
INDICTMENT 
The Grand Jury charges that: 
BACKGROUND 
At all times relevant to this Indictment: 
I. 
Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN employed defendants 
" and 
o perform, 
among other things, services as personal assistants. 
T 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013412 
EFTA00230317

U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of Florida 
First Assistant U.S. Attorney 
99 N.E. Ith Street 
Montt FL 33132 
(303) 961.9100 
DELIVERY BY FEDERAL EXPRESS 
June 3, 2008 
Honorable Mark Filip 
Office of the Deputy Attorney General 
United States Department of Justice 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20530 
Re: 
Jeffrey Epstein 
Dear Judge Filip, 
Jeffrey Epstein was a part-time resident of Palm Beach County, Florida.' In 2006, the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that, over a two-year period, Epstein paid 
approximately 28 minor females from Royal Palm Beach High Sc 
1 to come to his house for 
sexual favors.2 In July 2006, the matter was presented to AUSA A. 
f our West 
Palm Beach branch office to pursue a formal criminal investigation. That investigation resulted in 
the discovery of approximately one dozen additional minor victims. Over the last several months, 
approximately six more minor victims have been identified. 
AUSA was 
been ready to present an indictment to a West Palm Beach federal grand 
jury since May 2007. The prosecution memorandum and proposed indictment have been extensively 
reviewed and re-reviewed by Southern District of Florida (SDFL) Deputy Chief of the Criminal 
I Epstein has not resided in Palm Beach since he learned of the instant investigation. 
2 Epstein's sexual conduct with the victims included: instructing them to massage and pinch his 
nipples, masturbating in their presence, digitally penetrating them, using a vibrator on their vaginas, 
engaging in oral sex with them, having the victims perform oral sex on Epstein's adult girlfriend, and 
engaging in sexual intercourse, all in exchange for money, ranging from $200 to $1,000 per session. 
Confidential and Privileged —Attorney Work Product 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013413 
EFTA00230318

Division 
, Chief of the Criminal Division Matthew MencheP, First Assistant United 
States Attorney Jeffrey H. Sloman, United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta as well as various 
members of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section  (CEOS) at the Department of Justice 
including, but not limited to its Chief, 
 
 
. Many of these legal and factual issues 
have been discussed and approved by Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division 
(DAAG) Sigal Mandelker and the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (AAG) 
Alice S. Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division's Appellate Section and the Office of Enforcement 
Operations regarding the petit policy. 
By May 2007, AUSA 
be an "kin approval from her supervisors to indict 
Epstein. Her immediate supervisor was
. Mr. 
M
I
 
had served as the Chief of the 
Public Integrity Section at DOJ as well as in several supervisory positions in the SDFL. By mid-
2006, he had returned to his position as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division in West Palm 
Beach (head of the West Palm Beach branch office), after serving as the interim Chief of the Public 
Integrity Section at DOJ at the request of AAG Fisher. By October 2007, Mr... 
would leave 
the SDFL to become AAG Fisher's Chief of Staff.' Above Mr. ME in the SDFL's chain of 
command were-, 
Criminal Division Chief, First Assistant USA Sloman and finally, 
U.S. Attorney Acosta. 
Prior to seeking approval to return an indictment, Epstein's legal team had been actively 
working to convince this Office that such action was not warranted. For example, at the end of 2006, 
former SDFL U.S. Attorney and EOUSA Executive Director Guy Lewis contacted former colleagues 
AUSA 
and, later Deputy Criminal Chief/IN, 
when he learned that they were handling 
or involved in supervising the federal investigation of Epstein. In December, former SDFL AUSA 
 
and 
court also contacted AUSA Villafaita to set a meeting. In advance 
of that meeting, AUSA 
requested documents but that request was refused. Ms. Sanchez 
then contacted AUSA 
, who agreed to meet with Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Lefcourt. On February 
1, 2007, Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Lefcourt met with AUSAs 
and I= 
as well as a member 
of the FBI, and presented defense counsel's view of the case and promised a willingness to assist in 
the investigation. The SDFL was unpersuaded by their presentation and the investigation continued. 
By the late Spring and early Summer, the focus of the investigation shifted from investigating 
the facts of the victims' claims to Epstein's background, his asserted defenses, co-conspirators, and 
possible witnesses who could corroborate the victims' statements. The investigation also began to 
look into fmancial aspects of the case, requiring the issuance of several subpoenas. At the time, Mr. 
Lefcourt began leveling accusations of improprieties with the investigation and sought a meeting 
3Mr. Menchel resigned for private practice on August 3, 2007 and was replaced by Robert 
Senior. 
'Although I, Jeffrey H. Sloman, am writing this letter, I will continue to refer to myself as 
"First Assistant USA Sloman" or "FAUSA Sloman" to help reduce any confusion. 
'Rolando Garcia replaced Mr. 
as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division. 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
-2-
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013414 
EFTA00230319

with Criminal Division Chief 
B that time, the proposed initial indictment 
package had been reviewed and approv 
by Mr. 
in West Palm Beach and by attorneys with 
CEOS; however, it awaited review by Mr. Menc e and FAUSA Sloman. The SDFL deferred 
presenting the indictment to the grand jury to accommodate the Epstein legal team's request for a 
meeting. We also agreed to wait several weeks for that meeting to occur to allow four of Epstein's 
attorneys to be present and also provided counsel with a list of the statutes that were the subject of 
the investigation. 
On June 26, 2007, Mr. Menchel, Mr. 
AUSA ME, 
and FAUSA Sloman, and two 
that meeting, Professor Dershowitz and other members of the defenselleTal
l
att 
legal and 
FBI agents met with Alan Dershowitz, Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and 
. During 
factual arguments against a federal indictment. Counsel for the defense also requested the 
opportunity to present written arguments, which was granted. The arguments and written materials 
provided by the defense were examined by the SDFL and rejected. 
On July 31, 2007, Mr. Menchel, Mr. 
AUSA 
and FAUSA Sloman, and two 
FBI agents met with Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and 
. On that date, the SDFL 
presented a written sheet of terms that would satisfy the SDFL's federal interest in the case and 
discussed the substance of those terms. See Tab A. One of those terms was: 
Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file 
suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. 
District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and the subject 
matter. Epstein will not contest that the identified victims are persons who, while 
minors, were victims of violations of Title 18, United States Code, §§ 2422 and/or 
2423. 
During that meeting, the focus was on Mr. Epstein's unwillingness to spend time in prison, and 
various suggestions were raised by defense counsel, including the proposal that he could serve a 
sentence of home confinement or probation. This was repeatedly mentioned by counsel for Epstein 
as being equivalent to a term of imprisonment in a state or federal prison. Epstein's counsel 
mentioned their concerns about his safety in prison, and the SDFL offered to explore a plea to a 
federal charge to allow Epstein to serve his time in a federal facility. Counsel were also presented 
with a conservative estimate of the sentence that Epstein would face if he were convicted: an 
advisory guideline range of 188 - 235 months' incarceration with a five-year mandatory minimum 
prison term, to be followed by lifetime supervised release. Counsel was told that Epstein had two 
weeks to accept or reject the proposal. 
It is critical to note that Ms. Sanchez, one of Epstein's local lawyers, seized upon this method 
of restitution as a condition of deferring federal prosecution. In referring to the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 
method of compensation, Ms. Sanchez stated: 
[t]his would allow the victims to be able to promptly put this behind them and go 
forward with their lives. If given the opportunity to opine as to the appropriateness 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
-3-
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013415 
EFTA00230320

of Mr. Epstein's proposal, in my extensive experience in these types of cases, the 
victims prefer a quick resolution with compensation for damages and will always 
support any disposition that eliminates the need for trial. 
See attached Tab B, August 2, 2007 letter frorrIMMat 
to SDFL Criminal Division Chief 
Menchel, p.2, fn 1. Ironically, it is Epstein's "national" attorneys who are now representing to the 
Deputy Attorney General of the United States in their May 19, 2008 letter that: 
Perhaps most troubling, the USAO in Miami, as a condition of deferring prosecution, 
required a commingling of substantive federal criminal law with a proposed civil 
remedy engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in 
private practice in South Florida with personal relationships to some of the 
prosecutors involved. 
Not only did Epstein's lawyers like the idea of using 18 U.S.C. § 2255 to compensate the victims 
but, they also sought to make their non-incarcerative state proposal even more attractive by offering 
payments to "a charitable organization benefitting victims of sexual assault," "law enforcement 
investigative costs" and "Court and probationary costs." Id. at p. 2. 
Epstein's counsel, still dissatisfied with the Office's review of the case, demanded to meet 
with U.S. Attorney Acosta and to have the opportunity to meet with someone in Washington, D.C. 
To accommodate Roy Black, the meeting was put off until September 7, 2007, despite the fact that 
the indictment was ready for presentation to the grand jury. In the interim, AUSA V illafafla and the 
investigators met with CEOS Chief Oosterbahn, to review, yet again, the evidence and legal theories 
of prosecution. Chief Oosterbahn strongly supported the proposed indictment and even offered to 
join the trial team and provide additional support from CEOS. 
On September 7, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta met with Kirkland & Ellis partners Jay 
Lefkowitz and former Solicitor General Ken Starr and Ms. Sanchez, along with Chief Oosterbahn 
and AUSAs Villafafla, John McMillan, and FAUSA S lomat' Messrs. Starr and Lefkowitz presented 
arguments regarding the sufficiency of the federal interest in the case and other legal and factual 
issues. We discussed those legal arguments and the unanimous opinion of all of the attorneys present 
was in favor of prosecution. During that meeting, Mr. Lefkowitz also offered a plea resolution. His 
offer, in essence, was that Epstein be subjected to home confinement at his Palm Beach home, using 
private security officers who would serve as his "wardens," if nrrecsary. Mr. Lefkowitz expressed 
the belief that such a sentence would be particularly appropriate because, as a wealthy white man, 
he may be the subject of violence or extortion in prison. Finally, Messrs. Starr and Lefkowitz 
expressed the belief that Epstein's extensive philanthropy should be considered in our prosecution 
decision. U.S. Attorney Acosta summarily rejected these proposals, and indicated that the 24-month 
offer presented previously by the SDFL stood. 
'Roy Black did not attend. 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
-4-
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013416 
EFTA00230321

The issue of the inclusion of a restitution-type remedy for the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
§ 2255 was specifically raised and discussed at the September 7th meeting, and Mr. Starr thanked 
AUSA Villafafia for bringing it to his attention as a novel approach to allowing the victims to receive 
essentially federal restitution while allowing a plea to a state charge. After considering everything 
said and written by Epstein's legal team, and after conferring with Chief Oosterbahn, U.S. Attorney 
Acosta informed Epstein's counsel that the SDFL still intended to proceed to indictment. Since 
counsel indicated a desire to appeal the matter to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, 
or the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Acosta agreed to delay 
the presentation of the indictment for two weeks to allow them to speak with someone in 
Washington, D.C., if they so chose. 
Instead, Mr. Epstein elected to negotiate the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and on September 
12, 2007, counsel for the SDFL (AUSAs 
, Garcia, and MEW and counsel for Epstein 
(Messrs. Lefcourt, Lefkowitz, and Goldberger) met with Palm Beach County State Attorney Bany 
ICrisher and Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek to discuss a plea to an Information in the 
state court that would satisfy the federal interest in the case. As noted on the term sheet of July 31 '1
(Tab A), one of those essential terms was a guilty plea to a charge requiring sex offender registration. 
During that meeting, the issue of sex offender registration was raised, and Mr. Goldberger told the 
federal prosecutors that there was no problem, Mr. Epstein would plead guilty to the charge of 
procurement of minors for prostitution (Fl. Stat. 796.03), which was one of the statutes listed on the 
original term sheet. Although the SDFL had wanted Epstein to plead guilty to three different 
offenses, we agreed to this compromise.' Of course, the SDFL later learned that, at the time Mr. 
Goldberger made that statement, he incorrectly believed, based upon a statement from ASA 
Belohlavek, that Fl. Stat. § 796.03 did not require sex offender registration. 
The parties then began working first on a plea agreement to a federal charge and, when it was 
clear that there was no guarantee that Epstein would serve his sentence in a minimum security prison 
camp, the discussion turned to a Non-Prosecution Agreement. Both the federal plea agreement and 
the Non-Prosecution Agreement included references to § 2255 because neither the contemplated 
federal charges nor the proposed state charges encompassed all of the identified victims. If Epstein 
had been prosecuted under the planned indictment, the identified victims would have been eligible 
for restitution and damages under § 2255. As explained above, one of our interests, which had to 
be satisfied by the Non-Prosecution Agreement, was providing appropriate compensation to the 
victims. This provision of the Agreement was heavily negotiated. As Mr. Lefkowitz wrote in his 
November 29th e-mail to FAUSA Sloman, Epstein "offered to provide a restitution fund for the 
alleged victims in this matter; however, that option was rejected by [our] Office." That option was 
rejected for several reasons. First, the SDFL does not serve as legal representatives to the victims and 
has no authority to bind victims, nor could it provide a monetary figure that would represent a "loss" 
amount for restitution purposes. Second, there would be no legal basis for federal restitution without 
7 Another significant compromise reached at the meeting was a reduction in the amount of jail 
time - from 24 months down to 18 months, which would be served at the Palm Beach County Jail rather 
than a state prison facility. 
Confidential end Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
-5-
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013417 
EFTA00230322

a conviction for a federal offense. And, third, it was the U.S. Attorney's belief that the SDFL should 
not be put in the position of administering a restitution fund. Our § 2255 proposal put the victims 
in the same position that they would have been in if we had proceeded to trial and convicted Epstein 
of his crimes, with the exception that the victims were provided with counsel. The appointment of 
counsel was not such a benefit to the victims but, rather, was done, in part, to benefit Epstein by 
allowing him to try to privately negotiate a group resolution of all claims with one attorney. Epstein 
and his lawyers agreed with this alternative. 
The negotiation of the Agreement was lengthy and difficult. Mr. Lefkowitz and AUSA 
went through several drafts of both a federal plea agreement and a Non-Prosecution 
Agreement. Throughout these negotiations, when a member of the defense team was dissatisfied 
with the SDFL's position, it was repeatedly appealed throughout the Office. So several members of 
the defense team spoke with the chain of command regarding the terms of the Agreement, including 
the § 2255 provisions. At the eleventh hour, when Epstein's legal team realized that Fl. Stat. 796.03 
would require him to register as a sex offender, they sought to change the most essential term of the 
agreement - a term that Messrs. Goldberger, Lefkowitz, and Lefcourt had specifically agreed to at 
the September 121k meeting with the State Attorney's Office - asking to allow Epstein to plead to a 
charge that would not require registration. When this was rejected, several members of the defense 
team appealed directly to U.S. Attorney Acosta which also failed. When that failed, according to 
press reports, apparently Mr. Lefcourt "leaked" a letter intended for the U.S. Attorney to the press 
containing the reasons why he/Lefcourt did not believe Epstein should have to register. See October 
9, 2007 New York Post article attached at Tab C. 
Prior to signing the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Mr. Epstein's defense team included Ken 
Starr, Jay Lefkowitz, 
, Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Guy Lewis, 
Martin Weinberg, Jack Goldberger, Stephanie Thacker", and the associates at Kirkland & Ellis who 
conducted research on discrete issues. This impressive legal team reviewed the Agreement and 
counseled Epstein. Based upon that counsel, Epstein decided that it was in his best interest to execute 
the Non-Prosecution Agreement which was signed on September 24, 2007 by Mr. Lefcourt, Ms. 
Sanchez and Epstein. A copy of which is attached hereto as Tab D. The core principles of the 
Agreement are incarceration, registration as a sex offender and a method of compensation.' 
Furthermore, and significantly, Epstein agreed that he had the burden of ensuring compliance of the 
'Ms. Thacker had recently resigned from CEOS as a Trial Attorney and entered private practice. 
9 Specifically, the Agreement mandates, inter alia, (I) a guilty plea in Palm Beach County 
Circuit Court to solicitation of prostitution (Fl. Stat. § 796.07) and procurement of minors to engage in 
prostitution (Fl. Stat. § 796.03) (an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender); (2) a 30-
month sentence including 18 months' incarceration in county jail; (3) a methodology to compensate the 
victims identified by the United States utilizing 18 U.S.C. Section 2255 such that they would be placed in 
the same position as if Epstein had been convicted of one of the enumerated offenses set forth in Title 
18, United States Code, § 2255; (4) entry of the guilty plea and sentence no later than October 26, 2007; 
and (5) the start of the above-mentioned sentence no later than January 4, 2008. 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
-6-
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013418 
EFTA00230323

Agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office and the Judge of the 15" Judicial 
Circuit and "that the failure to do so will be a breach of the agreement' (emphasis added). To this 
day, the SDFL has never divulged its evidence to Epstein's lawyers. 
Within a week of the execution of the Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest 
its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's 
recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers 
in private practice in South Florida with personal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved," 
it was done to avoid even the appearance of favoritism in the selection of the attorney representative. 
As a result, the parties executed an addendum which documented the SDFL's right to assign the 
selection of an attorney representative to an independent third-party. A copy of the October 29, 2007 
Addendum is attached hereto as Tab E. The parties subsequently agreed that retired Federal District 
Court Judge Edward B. Davis should be that independent third-party/special master. Ultimately, 
Judge Davis selected Robert C. Josefsberg of the law firm of Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, et at 10
During this same time frame, Epstein lawyer Jay Lefkowitz sought to delay the entry of his guilty 
plea and sentence. After the SDFL accommodated his request (from October 26th to November 20th), 
Mr. Starr began taking issue with the methodology of compensation, notification to the victims, and 
the issues that had been previously considered and rejected during negotiations, i. e. , that the conduct 
does not require registration and the contemplated state and federal statutes have no applicability to 
the instant matter. 
In response to Mr. Stares protests, the SDFL offered numerous and various reasonable 
modifications and accommodations which ultimately resulted in U.S. Attorney Acosta's December 
19, 2007 letter to 
. See attached Tab F. In that letter, U.S. Attorney Acosta tried 
to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone 
consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language 
regarding the 2255 provision: 
"Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense 
enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, § 2255, will have the same rights to 
proceed under § 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein been tried federally and 
convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, 
the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals 
whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense 
by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any 
authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall 
consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same 
position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; 
no less." 
I° Due to the subsequent objections raised by Epstein's counsel, Mr. Josefsberg was never given 
the opportunity to become the attorney representative. 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
-7-
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013419 
EFTA00230324

Mr. Starr also objected to the SDFL's intention to notify the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
§ 3771. In response to Mr. Starr's concerns, USA Acosta again consulted with DAAG Mandelker 
who advised him to make the following proposal: "[wie will defer to the discretion of the State 
Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings, 
although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes." These proposals 
were immediately rejected by Epstein in Mr. Lefkowitz's December 26, 2007 correspondence to 
USA Acosta. 
At our December 14, 2007 meeting at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, counsel for 
Epstein articulated that it was a "profound injustice" to require Epstein to register as a sex offender 
and reiterated that no federal crime, especially 18 U.S.C. § 2422(6), had been committed since the 
statute is only violated if a telephone or means of interstate commerce is used to do the persuading 
or inducing. This particular attack on this statute had been previously raised and thoroughly 
considered and rejected by the SDFL and CEOS prior to the execution of the Agreement. Epstein's 
lawyers also argued that the facts were inapplicable to the contemplated state statutes and that he 
should not have been allowed to have been induced into the Agreement because the facts were not 
what he understood them to be. To reiterate, the SDFL has never divulged its evidence to anyone on 
the Epstein legal team. Once counsel for Epstein failed to persuade us that federal involvement was 
inappropriate, they mounted an aggressive campaign to defer federal prosecution. When we refused 
to compromise on anything except the length of incarceration, they finally executed the Non-
Prosecution Agreement. 
Subsequent to the December 14, 2007 meeting, the SDFL received three letters from Mr. 
Lefkowitz and/or Mr. Starr which expanded on some of the themes announced in the December 14"' 
meeting. Essentially, trying to portray the SDFL as trying to coerce a plea to unknown allegations 
and incoherent theories. In his December 17, 2007 correspondence, Mr. Lefkowitz decreed that 
Epstein's conduct did not meet the requirements of one of the state statutes Epstein agreed to plead 
guilty to - procurement of minors to engage in prostitution (Fl. Stat. § 796.03); that Epstein's 
conduct does not require registration under Florida law in contravention of the September 24" 
Agreement; and the State Attorney's Office does not believe the conduct is registrable. On December 
21, 2007, Mr. Lefkowitz rejected the U.S. Attorney's proposed resolution of the 2255 provision 
because they "strongly believe that the provable conduct of Mr. Epstein with respect to these 
individuals fails to satisfy the requisite elements of either 18 U.S.C. Section[s) 2422(6) ... or ... 
2423(6)." In his December 26, 2007 correspondence, he stated that "we have reiterated in previous 
submissions that Mr. Epstein does not believe he is guilty of the federal charges enumerated under 
section 2255" and requiring "Mr. Epstein to in essence admit guilt, though he believes he did not 
commit the requisite offense." 
The SDFL reiterated time and time again that it had never wanted nor expected Epstein to 
plead guilty to a charge he did not believe he committed and repeatedly offered to dissolve the 
agreement to allow Epstein to contest the charges in the court system. As a result, the SDFL obliged 
his request for an independent de novo review of the investigation and facilitated such a review at 
the highest levels of the Department of Justice. As you know, on May 15, 2008, after months of 
considering the matter, the Criminal Division considered whether there is a legitimate basis for the 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
-8-
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013420 
EFTA00230325

SDFL to proceed with a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein. CEOS Section Chief Oosterbahn 
concluded that "federal prosecution would not be improper or inappropriate." See attached May 15, 
2008 letter from CEOS Section Chief Oosterbahn to Jay Lefkowitz. On May 19, 2008,1 notified Mr. 
Lefkowitz that the SDFL would give Epstein a full two weeks (close of business on Monday, June 
2, 2008) to comply with the terms and conditions of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, as modified 
by the USA's December 19th letter to Ms. Sanchez." Therefore, despite the fact that the investigation 
has identified several more victims, the SDFL is still offering Epstein the opportunity to comply with 
the terms and conditions of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. 
The SDFL was recently notified that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General has agreed 
to consider additional allegations not considered by CEOS which were recently raised in 
correspondence by two former high-ranking members of the Department of Justice - Ken Starr and 
Joe Whitley. On May 28, 2008, I notified Mr. Lefkowitz by e-mail that the SDFL has postponed the 
June 2, 2008 deadline until the DAG's Office has completed its review of this matter. Their 
correspondence to the DAG alleges that the SDFL's investigation lacks integrity because it has 
leaked "highly confidential aspects" of the investigation and negotiations to the New York Times 
and that FAUSA Sloman directed some of the victims to my former law firm. They also claim that 
the "unprecedented extension of federal law" by the SDFL suggests that this is politically motivated 
because Epstein is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr 
and Whitley go on to claim that FAUSA Sloman unilaterally, arbitrarily and unnecessarily imposed 
a June 2, 2008 deadline in order to prevent Epstein from seeking your Office's review and that "the 
unnecessary deadline is even more problematic because Mr. Epstein's effort to reconcile the state 
charge and sentence with the terms of the Agreement requires an unusual and unprecedented 
threatened application of federal law." 
I. 
The Alleged "Leak" to the New York Times. 
AUSA David Weinstein became involved in this matter in his capacity as back up for the 
District's Public Information Officer (NO). While the District's PIO was on annual leave, he was 
the acting PIO during the first week of January 2008. The entirety of his conduct in connection with 
the Epstein matter began on January 2, 2008 and ended on January 7, 2008." Specifically, his 
contact involved five telephone conversation with Landon Thomas, a reporter for the New York 
Times. These conversations occurred on 1) the morning of January 2, 2008, 2) the afternoon of 
January 2, 2008, 3) the afternoon of January 3, 2008, 4) the afternoon of January 4, 2008, and 5) the 
afternoon of January 7, 2008. 
" Mr. Lefkowitz was placed on notice on February 25, 2008, that in the event that CEOS 
disagreed with Epstein's position, Epstein would have one week to comply with the terms and conditions 
of the Agreement, as modified by the USA's December 19° letter to Ms. Sanchez. 
I2AUSA Weinstein has self-reported to the Office of Professional Responsibility. 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
-9-
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-013421 
EFTA00230326

A. 
The Morning of.lanuary 2, 2008. 
AUSA Weinstein began his conversation with Mr. Thomas by explaining that he was the 
acting PIO for the week and that he had received Mr.Thomas's December 31, 2007 e-mail requesting 
an interview and asking for comments on the following five statements.13 First, "that in the summer 
of 2005 the palm beach police department referred the Epstein case to you." Second, "that the case 
is being overseen by 
  
j, and above him, R. Alexander Acosta." Third, "that Mr. Acosta 
has made child pornography a focus are [sic] for your office." Fourth, "that this summer your office 
gave Mr. Epstein an ultimatum: plead guilty to a charge that would require him to register as a sex 
offender, or the government would release a 52 page indictment, charging him with crimes that could 
include procuring sex for a third party or engaging in sexual tourism. Both of these charges carry jail 
sentences of as much as 15 years." Fifth, "that your office told Mr. Epstein and his lawyers: we are 
ready to pull the trigger." Sixth, "I also wanted to ask Mr. Sloman about his role in a case involving 
Jonathan Zirulnikoff and his daughter earlier this year." 
At the outset, Weinstein said that he could not comment on any specific pending matters and 
that he would do his best to answer some of his questions. Thomas said that his questions were 
based, in part, upon conversations that he had already had with members of Mr. Epstein's defense 
team, prior published reports of a pending State case against Mr. Epstein and public information 
available through the State Court system. 
Weinstein refused to answer the first question. As to the second question, Weinstein told him 
that any matter arising out of conduct in Palm Beach County, was prosecuted by our West Palm 
Beach branch office. He also told him that as First Assistant, the FAUSA had supervisory authority 
over all AUSAs throughout the District. In turn, the FAUSA answered directly to the U.S. Attorney. 
In response to the third question, Weinstein discussed the difference between child 
exploitation and child pornography. Weinstein said that federal crimes involving child exploitation 
were one of several focus points of our Office. He further explained that in addition to traditional 
federal areas of prosecution the other focus points included health care fraud and gang prosecutions. 
Weinstein refused to answer the fourth and fifth topics but did discuss the general nature of 
pre-trial proceedings in federal court. He said that the SDFL does not offer ultimatums, nor are we 
in the business of issuing ultimatums. He explained that in cases where a party wants to plead guilty 
prior to indictment, we will discuss the parameters of guilty pleas and that people always have the 
right to proceed to trial if they choose to do so and that we do not favor one resolution over the other. 
Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that he would not discuss his specific question about Mr. Epstein's 
lawyer's statement that someone from our Office told them that "we are ready to pull the trigger.;' 
'After reviewing his e-mail, AUSA Weinstein discussed the matter with U.S. Attorney Acosta. 
Pursuant to USAM 1-7.530 and the Media Relations Guide, Section III D2, after consultation with and 
prior approval from the US Attorney, he called Mr. Thomas on the morning of January 2nd. 
Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product 
-10-
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P413422 
EFTA00230327