DOJ-OGR-00023032.jpg

IL. IV. OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR STANDARD, OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN NEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA ..... eee 134 A. U.S. Attorneys Have Broad Discretion to Resolve Investigations or Cases as They Deem Appropriate, and Acosta’s Decision to Decline to Prosecute Epstein Federally Does Not Constitute Professional MUISCONCUCE...... eee eee eeeeeeeeseessecnsesaeessesseeaecnaecnaesaeesaeeseesaeenaecnaesaaesaeeseeaeenaeenaesaee 135 B. No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Precluded Acosta’s Use of a Non-Prosecution Agreement to Resolve the Federal Investigation Of Epstein 0... eceeceeeceeseceeeeeeneeseeecseeceeessneesaeecaeeesaecseeessaeesseeenaeseseeesneeseeesaeenenesnee 136 C. The NPA’s Individual Provisions Did Not Violate Any Clear and Unambiguous Standards .............eccescceeneeeeeeeeeeceneeeeneesseeceaeenseeseneesaeecsaeeneeeeeneeeaeees 137 1. Acosta Had Authority to Approve an Agreement That Required Epstein to Plead to Offenses Resulting in an 18-Month Term of THCATEGTALIOT sccncvn senses sn smsncn sn neuen semev sk SNRs AOR SUA MA RES a TR 137 2. The USAO’s Agreement Not to Prosecute Unidentified “Potential Co-Conspirators” Did Not Violate a Clear and Unambiguous Department Policy «0.0... ccceesceeeeeseeeseecsaeeeeeeeneesaeecaeceseeeeneesaeessaeeneeeenes 139 3. The NPA Did Not Violate Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal A]ens ............ceeeeceeeeeeeneeeeeeeneeeeneeeneesnaeeneeesnes 140 THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE INFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA TERMS FAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND BENEFITS TO EPS TET Noes .ssnens.scseswe sa cseews neni sh aesns sh SuSE SASSY 6 SSSR SSSRGNE Sh ERS SRE 140 A. OPR Found No Evidence of Criminal Corruption, Such as Bribery, Gratuity, or Illegal Political or Personal Consideration ..............ccceeceeeseceeeeeeeeeeneeeneeeeneenes 141 Bs Contemporaneous Written Records and Witness and Subject Interviews Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the Subjects Were Improperly Influenced by Epstein’s Status, Wealth, or Associations ................ 142 1. The Contemporaneous Records Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the NPA Resulted from Improper Factors................. 142 Ds The Subjects Asserted That They Were Motivated by Reasonable Strategic and Policy Considerations, Not Timproper Influences «00.2.0... eececeeeceeeeeeeeeenceeeeeeeneesseeceaeceaeeeseeesaeessaeenseeesnes 143 3. Subject and Witness Interviews and Contemporaneous Records Identified Case-Specific Considerations Relating to Evidence, Legal Theories, Litigation Risk, and a Trial’s Potential Impact ON VICTIMS 00... eee eeeeeeeeeecesecnsesaeeseeeseesaecnaecnaesaeesaeeseesaeenaesnaesaeeseeesnenatenaes 144 C. Other Significant Factors Are Inconsistent with a Conclusion That the Subjects’ Actions Were Motivated by Improper Influences................. 149 XVIil DOJ-OGR- 00023032