DOJ-OGR-00000174.tif

lila told OPR that her reference to “all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge” related to her concern that if the plea agreement contained information about uncharged conduct, the court might ask for more information about that conduct and inquire why it had not been charged, and if the government provided such information, Epstein’s attorneys might claim the agreement was breached.” With regard to immigration, Villafafa told OPR that the USAO generally did not take any position in plea agreements on immigration issues, and that in this case, there was no evidence that either of the two assistants who were foreign nationals had committed fraud in connection with their immigration paperwork, “and I think that they were both in status. So there wasn’t any reason for them to be deported.”!* As to whether the foreign nationals would be removable by virtue of having committed crimes, Villafaiia told OPR she did not consider her role as seeking removal apart from actual prosecution. Villafafia concluded her email to Lefkowitz by expressing disappointment that they were not “closer to resolving this than it appears that we are,” and 48 OPR understood Villafaria’s concern to be that if the govern- ment were required to respond to a court’s inquiry into additional facts, Epstein would object that the government was trying to cast him in a negative light in order to influence the court to impose a sentence greater than the agreed-upon term. 44 According to the case agents, the West Palm Beach FBI office had an ICE agent working with them at the beginning of the federal investigation, and the ICE agent normally would have looked into the immigration status of any foreign national, but neither case agent recalled any immigration issue regarding any of the Epstein employees. DOJ-OGR-00000174