DOJ-OGR-00004273.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293 Filed 05/25/21 Page 8 of 32 as to the S1 Indictment counts. However, Annabi, by its own terms, is inapposite to the circumstances of this case, where one federal district has agreed that “the United States” will abandon certain offenses as part of a negotiated agreement and then a second federal district later seeks to charge those very same offenses based on the exact same conduct. Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment are therefore barred by the NPA. The Court must dismiss these counts, as well as the expanded Mann Act conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three, which incorporate the same conduct charged in Counts Five and Six for which Ms. Maxwell has immunity. In addition, because the USAO-SDNY is seeking duplicative punishment for the same offenses that were resolved by the NPA, prosecuting Ms. Maxwell on Counts Five and Six violates her rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Court should also grant the other relief Ms. Maxwell seeks for the reasons set forth below. SUMMARY OF NEW ALLEGATIONS IN THE 82 INDICTMENT Like the S1 Indictment, Counts One and Three of the S2 Indictment allege that Ms. Maxwell conspired to violate two separate provisions of the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422, 2423(a). Count One alleges that Ms. Maxwell conspired to entice “one and more individuals” to travel in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in “sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. (S2 Indictment ff 11-13). Count Three alleges that Ms. Maxwell conspired to transport “an individual” in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in “sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). Ud. 9§ 16-19). In the S1 Indictment, these counts were based on conduct that occurred at unspecified times between 1994 and 1997. The S2 Indictment expands the date range of these conspiracies into the 2000s based on the DOJ-OGR-00004273