DOJ-OGR-00021095.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page48 of 113 other offenses that were the subject of the FBI and U.S. Attormney’s Office investigation, and any offenses that arose from the related grand jury investigation.” A144. Consequently, the charge is not “sufficiently distinct,” Annabi does not apply, and the USAO-SDNY was bound by the NPA not to bring this charge. Count Six should be dismissed. 4. There is affirmative indication that the NPA binds the USAO-SDNY The Annabi rule’s presumption is unavailing by its own terms where “it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.” Annabi at 672. Here, the “affirmative appearance” that a broader restriction was intended for co-conspirators is evident within the four corners of the NPA, when the NPA is viewed as a whole. Unlike the agreement in Annabi and Abbamonte, the NPA is in written form and was carefully negotiated by sophisticated counsel. The absence of any limiting language in the co-conspirator immunity provision stands in sharp contrast to the NPA’s provision regarding the non-prosecution of Epstein, which is expressly limited to prosecution “in this District.” A175. It is difficult to envision a clearer “affirmative appearance” than the express inclusion elsewhere in the agreement of a limitation that is conspicuously absent here. Basic principles of contract interpretation require an inference that the parties considered the inclusion of the phrase “in this District” necessary to limit the scope of the non-prosecution 33 DOJ-OGR-00021095