HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012671.jpg

{4003/7006 05/16/2008 11:16 FAX 003 05/16/08 FRI 11:08 FAX As was made clear at the outset, we did not review the facts, circumstances, or terms included in the plea offer, nor any allegations that individuals involved in the investigation engaged in misconduct. Despite that agreement, we note that your letters of April 8, April 28, and May 14 focus in large part on accusations of investigative or prosecutorial misconduct. Not only do allegations of prosecutorial misconduct fall outside the boundary of our agreed review, they also fall outside the authority of the Criminal Division in the first instance. Simply, the Criminal Division does not investi gate or resolve allegations of professional misconduct by federal prosecutors. For these Teasons, we do not respond to the portion of those letters that discuss alleged misconduct, Based on our review of all of these materials, and after careful consideration of the issues, we conclude that U.S. Attomey Acosta could properly use his discretion to authorize prosecution in this case. We will briefly address each of the issues that you have raised, Knowledge of age. Federal child exploitation statutes differ as to whether there must be proof that the defendant was aware that the children were under the age of 18. However, even for those statutes where knowledge of age is an element of the offense, it is possible to satisfy that element with, proof that the defendant was deliberately ignorant of facts which would suggest that the person was a minor. For that reason, the fact that some of the individuals allegedly lied to Mr. Epstein about their age is not dispositive of the issue. While there may be an open factual issue as to Mr. Epstein’s knowledge, we cannot say that it would be impossible to prove knowledge of age for any such charges which require it. Therefore, Mr. Acosta could rightfully conclude that this factual issue is best resolved by a jury. Travel for the purpose. In the materials you prepared, you suggest that Mr. Epstein should not be charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) because his dominant purpose in going to Florida was not to engage in iNegal sexual activity, but rather to return to one of his residences, While we fully understand your argument, we also find that the U.S. Attorney’s office has a good faith basis fully to develop the facts on this issue and brief the law to permit a court to decide whether the law properly reaches such conduct. Mr. Acosta would not be abusing his discretion if he decided to pursue such a course of action. 2 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012671