DOJ-OGR-00010566.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document670 _ Filed 06/22/22 Page 31 of55 be presumed because of the substantial difference in age between the participant and the minor.” Id. On the facts, the defendant does not resist application of this enhancement to any victim other than Carolyn. As to Carolyn, the defendant ignores the presumption, instead arguing that the record lacks evidence of additional acts of undue influence. (Def. Mem. 21-22). None is required: the age difference alone provides a basis for the Court to apply the enhancement. See United States v. Watkins, 667 F.3d 254, 264-65 (2d Cir. 2012) (applying the presumption and noting that the defendant “failed to offer any evidence rebutting the presumption on this basis,” even though the defendant argued that the “evidence demonstrated that [the defendant] failed to compromise the voluntariness of [the victim]” (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)). And, in any event, the record shows that the defendant directed Virginia to show Carolyn how to sexually gratify Epstein (Tr. 1521), called to set up appointments with Carolyn at Epstein’s lavish Palm Beach mansion (Tr. 1527), sent cars or cabs to pick her up (Tr. 1532), gave Carolyn what, to Carolyn, were large sums of money needed to fuel her drug addiction (Tr. 1528-31, 1541), and helped Epstein send Carolyn gifts, including lingerie (Tr. 1541-42). The record also shows that the defendant talked with Carolyn about her family problems, traumatic personal experiences, and goals (Tr. 1534-35), and complimented her body (Tr. 1536), which—as Dr. Rocchio explained— can help to build a relationship of trust and attachment. Although the defendant suggests that Carolyn’s behavior was entirely voluntary, this was no arms-length transaction. The defendant and Epstein encouraged Carolyn to engage in sex acts for money. That is undue influence. See, e.g., United States v. Patterson, 576 F.3d 431, 443 (7th Cir. 2009) (affirming application of an undue influence guideline where the victim “had never worked in prostitution before the defendant encouraged her to try it” and “was destitute and penniless”). In support of her claim that Carolyn’s 29 DOJ-OGR-00010566