DOJ-OGR-00021195.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document ONT 3536038, Page23 of 258 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 21 of 348 D. OPR Does Not Find That the Subjects’ Preexisting Relationships with Defense Counsel, Decisions to Meet with Defense Counsel, and Other Factors Established That the Subjects Acted from Improper Influences or Provided Improper Benefits to EpSte itt oe cirsisncsewerseecanasneeanereraceenaueunrenresreerennse 150 l. The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects Extended Any Improper Benefit to Epstein because of Their Preexisting Relationships with His Attorneys .........ccceccsscesseceseeeeesaeeeeeeneeacecaeceeeeenees 150 Drs The Subjects Asserted That Their Relationships with Defense Counsel Did Not Influence Their Actions ..0... cee ssesseeseeeeeeeeeeteeteeees 151 E, The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects’ Meetings with Defense Counsel Were Improper Benefits to Epstein... ceeesceeeeeeeeeeeeteeeeees 155 1. The Evidence Shows That the Subjects’ Decisions to Meet with Epstein’s Legal Team Were Warranted by Strategic Considerations......155 2. The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta Negotiated a Deal Favorable to Epstein over Breakfast with Defense Counsel ........... 160 F. Villafafia’s Emails with Defense Attorney Lefkowitz during the NPA Negotiations Do Not Establish That Villafafia, or Other Subjects, Intended to Give Epstein Preferential Treatment or Were Motivated by Favoritism or Other Improper Influences 0.0... ceeeseeeessceeeeeeeeceeceeeenecaeeeeeenees 163 G. The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta, Lourie, or Villafafia Agreed to the NPA’s Provision Promising Not to Prosecute ‘Potential Co-conspirators” in Order to Protect Any of Epstein’s Political, Celebrity, or Other Influential Associates 200... .ecsecceseseneesceeteteneeseeeseseneesceaeseneeaceseeseeeeneeens 166 H. OPR’s Investigation Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That Epstein Cooperated in Other Federal Investigations or Received Special Treatment ON That Basis... eesesessesssssseeessseeseecescescescsseesecsecsecseeseeseeeesseseeseeseeesseeaeenecneenees 168 ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY RESOLVING THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE MPA 1.0... eee eteneeseeseeeeseescneeseecueeececseeaeeesneseeeees 169 A. Acosta’s Decision to Resolve the Federal Investigation through a State Plea under Terms Incorporated into the NPA Was Based on a Flawed Application of the Petite Policy and Federalism Concerns, and Failed to Consider the Significant Disadvantages of a State-Based Resolution ..........ceceseeceneeneeeeeeeees 170 B. The Assessment of the Merits of a Potential Federal Prosecution Was Undermined by the Failure to Obtain Evidence or Take Other Investigative Steps That Could Have Changed the Complexion of the Case ....... ee eeeeeeeeeees 175 C. OPR Was Unable to Determine the Basis for the Two-Year Term of Incarceration, That It Was Tied to Traditional Sentencing Goals, or That It Satisfied the Federal Interest in the Prosecution... eee eeeeeeseeeecneeeees 179 D. Acosta’s Decisions Led to Difficulties Enforcing the NPA ........ ce eeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 182 E. Acosta Did Not Exercise Sufficient Supervisory Review over the Process......... 182 XIX DOJ-OGR-00021195