DOJ-OGR-00002578.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 142 Filed 02/04/21 Page 6 of 38 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Memorandum in Support of her Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for Breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (“Motion”). One does not need to engage in complex analysis to understand what has happened here: the government has sought to substitute our client for Jeffrey Epstein, even if it means stretching—and ultimately exceeding—the bounds of the law. Yet, it is in precisely this setting—involving a defendant who, despite her years of denials, has been publicly attacked, threatened, and vilified like few others in recent memory—that the government’s scrupulous adherence to the law in prosecuting a criminal defendant is most critical. As the motions being filed today demonstrate, the government has repeatedly fallen short of its obligations here. The indictment must be dismissed. The government’s sudden zeal to prosecute Ms. Maxwell for alleged conduct with Epstein in the 1990s—conduct for which the government never even charged Epstein—follows a history that is both highly unusual and deeply troubling. The government (and state authorities) investigated Epstein thoroughly in 2006 for alleged conduct that is essentially identical to the conduct alleged in the current indictment. In 2007, the government’s investigation was resolved when it entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) with Epstein, which was negotiated under the supervision of R. Alexander Acosta, then United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida (“SDFL”), and approved by senior levels of Main Justice, including the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. In that NPA, the government agreed that any federal prosecution of Epstein in the SDFL would be deferred in exchange for Epstein’s agreement to DOJ-OGR-00002578