DOJ-OGR-00003882.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page9of23 and successfully pushed back against the government’s attempts to limit the scope of the provision. Epstein’s lawyers, in fact, insisted on a proposal that would have immunized the four individuals, “any employee” of one of Epstein’s companies, and “any unnamed co-conspirators for any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal investigation.” OPR Report at 166 n.237. Defense counsel’s efforts were in line with their representations to the government that Epstein “wanted to make sure that he’s the only one who takes the blame for what happened.” Id. at 167 (internal quotations omitted). When the government “finally revised” the language to the provision that appears in the signed NPA, it obviously acceded to defense’s counsel’s desire to leave open the possibility that other “potential co-conspirators” might someday have occasion to invoke the immunity provision. /d. at 166. In addition to being irrelevant, the government’s argument that Ms. Maxwell had largely escaped its attention at the time of the NPA is demonstrably incorrect. The government’s own file demonstrates that the FBI had interviewed Accuser-2° in 2006 (Opp. 16 n.9; Dkt. 148, Ex. B (sealed)), and thus had obviously learned of Accuser-2’s claims regarding Ms. Maxwell now included in the Indictment. Indeed, an internal FBI document expressly names Ms. Maxwell as one of the individuals that the FBI’s Miami office “began investigating” in 2006 as part of the investigation that led to the NPA. (See Ex. A). Thus, the government was clearly aware of Ms. Maxwell at the time it executed the NPA and agreed to extend the immunity provision to “any potential co-conspirators.” She is covered by the NPA. As a third party immunized by the NPA, Ms. Maxwell has third-party beneficiary status to enforce it. While the government cites United States vy. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019), for the proposition that “plea agreements differ from commercial contracts” (Opp. 18), the “differ[ence]” to which the Second Circuit was referring was that in construing a plea agreement, 3 Accuser-2 is identified in the Indictment as Minor Victim-2. DOJ-OGR- 00003882