DOJ-OGR-00003250.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 74 of 348 D. Acosta Decides on a Resolution That Includes a Two-Year Term of Incarceration The next critical step in the development of the NPA was the decision to propose a two- year term of imprisonment. Although presented to the defense as the “minimum” the USAO would accept, in actuality the two-year proposal became only the starting point for the negotiations, with the result that the defense continued to chip away at it as the negotiations continued. The contemporaneous emails make no mention of any rationale for the decision to propose two years as the government’s beginning negotiating position, and nobody with whom OPR spoke was able to recall how the decision was made. As discussed below, Acosta did offer OPR an explanation, but OPR was unable to find contemporaneous evidence supporting it.”° While the defense was communicating its objections to the federal investigation to Villafafia, Lourie, Menchel, and Sloman, Villafafia continued moving toward filing charges. On July 19, 2007, the day after receiving Oosterbaan’s email supporting a potential prosecution, Villafafia emailed Lourie and Menchel seeking approval to take further investigative steps regarding three of Epstein’s assistants. However, Menchel directed Villafafia to “hold off... until we decide what course of action we are going to take on [E]pstein which should happen next week.” Menchel told OPR that he did not specifically recall why he asked Villafafia to wait, but he assumed it was because Acosta was deciding what course of action to take on the case. On Monday, July 23, 2007, Menchel submitted a resignation notice to Acosta, stating that he would be leaving the USAO effective August 6, 2007.77 1. The July 26, 2007 Meeting in Miami Early on the morning of Thursday, July 26, 2007, Villafafia informed Menchel that she was preparing a new draft indictment containing revisions he had suggested, including removal of all but three of the “travel counts” and “a large number of [the] overt acts,” and the addition of overt acts and counts relating to two additional victims; she would not, however, have the revised indictment ready in time “for our discussion today” at their 2:00 p.m. meeting. Menchel told OPR that the fact that he had both proposed revisions to the indictment and also directed Villafafia to delay the investigative steps involving the assistants indicated that he was “trying to do something” with the case, but was waiting for Acosta to decide the “underlying issue” of whether to proceed with federal charges. Acosta made that decision on or before July 26, 2007. On that afternoon, Villafafia met in Miami with Menchel. She told OPR that Sloman, as well as the FBI case agents and their supervisors, were also present, with Lourie participating by telephone. Villafafia told OPR that she expected that the meeting, requested by Menchel, would address the direction of the investigation. However, Villafafia told OPR that after everyone had assembled, Menchel entered the room and stated that Acosta “has decided to offer a two-year state deal.” According to 18 See Section IV.D.2 in this Part. 77 As early as May 4, 2007, Menchel had informed Acosta that he was intending to leave the USAO to enter private practice. 48 DOJ-OGR-00003250