DOJ-OGR-00000281.jpg

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document6 - Filed 07/11/19 Page 8 of 16 The NPA required Mr. Epstein to plead guilty to a state felony charge (Fla. Stat. § 796.07), then pending in the State of Florida and to an additional state felony charge (not previously charged or required by the State) of violating Fla. Stat. § 796.03 (Case No. 2008-CF- 9381AXX), a charge requiring registration as a sex offender. Mr. Epstein complied with all of his obligations under the NPA. Contrary to the government’s argument, the NPA was not limited to a “list of several dozen victims identified in the prior investigation ... .” Gov’t Bail Letter at 6-7. Indeed, the NPA contains no “list of several dozen victims” and regardless, the NPA immunized Mr. Epstein from prosecution “for the offenses set out on pages | and 2 of this Agreement,” allegedly committed between 2001-07, as well as “any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation.” NPA at 2 (emphasis added). Moreover, the government’s interpretation that the NPA “pertained exclusively to the SDFL investigation” and “did not purport to bind any other Office or District” will be the subject of a major dispute in this case. This is especially so because Mr. Epstein’s alleged conduct at his Palm Beach residence features prominently in the conspiracy count (Count 1, 9] 14-19, § 22.a, d, f) and is incorporated by reference in the substantive charge (Count 2, ¥ 23). Beyond that, Mr. Epstein intends to raise and litigate significant due process issues about the Department of Justice’s conduct in this case. Namely, there is irrefutable evidence from the pending CVRA litigation in the Southern District of Florida that, after Mr. Epstein had fully complied with his obligations under the NPA, the USAO-SDFL affirmatively encouraged alleged victims to pursue prosecution of Mr. Epstein in other districts, in violation of the DOJ’s commitment to a “global” resolution. See Exhibit 2, at 8-12. The United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, along with supervisory and line prosecutors from the USAO-SDFL, corresponded on multiple occasions with, and personally conferred with, alleged victims and their lawyers to entertain discussions about the alleged victims’ desire to have Mr. Epstein prosecuted on federal charges. See id. at 9. Further, the Southern District of New York is likely relying upon physical evidence seized in connection with the prior investigation, see Gov’t Bail Letter at 6 (discussing “corroborating evidence,” including “contemporaneous notes, messages . . ., and call records”). In short, there will be evidence that the current New York case is not truly independent of the prior immunized conduct. The evidence will show that Mr. Epstein’s reasonable expectation that the NPA would “resolve globally [Mr. Epstein’s] state and federal criminal liability” in exchange for Mr. Epstein’s compliance with the duties and obligations in the NPA — which he fully performed — has been unconstitutionally undermined by the government’s efforts to minimize the potential consequences of a CVRA conferral violation (one that neither the government nor defense believes occurred but that was found to have occurred in the CVRA litigation which is pending a decision on remedies) by returning an inextricably intertwined second federal prosecution just as the District Court in Florida is receiving submissions on remedy. DOJ-OGR-00000281