DOJ-OGR-00000280.jpg

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 7 of 16 that was unsealed and became public in July 2013, specifically noted that “a number of districts outside the Southern District of Florida (e.g., the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey) share jurisdiction and venue with the Southern District of Florida over potential federal criminal charges based on the alleged sexual acts committed by Epstein against the Petitioners. Epstein is thus subject to potential prosecution for such acts in those districts.” Exhibit 2, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, 08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla. July 5, 2013), Dkt. 205-2, at 9. The government went so far as to invite the alleged victims “to contact the United States Attorney’s Office in those districts and seek to confer with government attorneys in those offices about investigating and potentially prosecuting Epstein based on the alleged federal crimes committed against them.” /d. at 10. The Florida U.S. Attorney’s Office even offered to share the evidence gathered in its investigation with prosecutors and grand juries in the other relevant jurisdictions. See id. at 10 n.9. The defense strongly disagrees with the premise that the government can offer and execute an immunity or nonprosecution agreement with a citizen in the location of one of two venues where an interstate telephone call (or flight or any form of wire or mail communication) occurs and then circumvent the consequences of that immunity grant by having the very same prosecution office promote and motivate a prosecution by another office at the second venue of what in fact was a single criminal transaction. What is significant for bail purposes is that notwithstanding this notice of the government’s illegal position, and his knowledge of the substantial penalties that he would face if charged and convicted, Mr. Epstein made no attempt to flee in the approximately six years preceding his arrest. During that time, as noted by the government, he engaged in substantial international travel, always returning to his residences in the United States. Mr. Epstein never sought to obtain dual citizenship or took any other steps indicative of an intent to flee. This fact significantly undermines the government’s contentions regarding risk of flight and indicates Mr. Epstein’s good-faith intent to contest the charges pending against him. On September 24, 2007, after a year-long investigation, the Department of Justice, through the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida (““USAO-SDFL”), entered into the NPA with Mr. Epstein. The NPA immunized Mr. Epstein from five distinct potential federal charges that “may have been committed by Epstein . .. from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007.” Exhibit 1, NPA, at 1-2. One of the federal charges was 18 U.S.C. § 1591, the statute charged in this SDNY case. The time period covered by the NPA subsumes the entire time period charged in this SDNY case. The USAO-SDFL acknowledged in the NPA that the very premise for Mr. Epstein to enter into it was “to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability ...” Jd. at 2 (emphasis added). Senior officials at the Department of Justice reviewed the NPA and either authorized or helped negotiate the resolution of the matter. See, e.g., United States’ Second Supplemental Privilege Log filed as Dkt. 329-1 in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.) (the “CVRA litigation’’) (illustrating the number of prosecutors involved in the decision-making over the NPA). DOJ-OGR-00000280