DOJ-OGR-00004404.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 107 of 349 precluding the government from requesting, initiating, or recommending immigration proceedings against the two assistants who were foreign nationals. At this point, Lefkowitz again sought to speak to Acosta, who replied by email: “I am happy to talk. My caveat is that in the middle of negotiations, u try to avoid[] undermining my staff by allowing ‘interlocutor[]y’ appeals so to speak so I’d want [M]arie on the call[.] I'll have her set something up.” Villafafia sent to Lefkowitz her own revised NPA, telling him it was her “attempt at combining our thoughts,” but it had not “been approved by the office yet.” She inserted solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, a registrable offense, as the charge to which Epstein would plead guilty; proposed a joint recommendation for a 30-month sentence, divided into 18 months in the county jail and 12 months of community control; and amended the § 2255 provision.'”3 Villafafia’s revision retained the provision suspending the investigation and holding all legal process in abeyance, and she incorporated the non-prosecution provision while slightly altering it to apply to “any potential co-conspirator of Epstein, including” the four named assistants, and deleting mention of the corporate entity employees. Finally, Villafafia deleted mention of immigration proceedings, but advised in her transmittal email that “we have not and don’t plan to ask immigration” proceedings to be initiated. !74 Later that day, Villafafia alerted Lourie (who had arrived in Florida from Washington, D.C. early that afternoon) and the new West Palm Beach manager (copying her first-line supervisor and co-counsel) that she had included language that defense counsel had requested “regarding promises not to prosecute other people,” and commented, “I don’t think it hurts us.” There is no documentation that Lourie, the West Palm Beach manager, or anyone else expressed disagreement with Villafafia’s assessment. Rather, within a few minutes, Villafafia re-sent her email, adding that defense counsel was persisting in including an immigration waiver in the agreement, to which Lourie responded, “No way. We don’t put that sort of thing in a plea agreement.” Villafafia replied to Lourie, indicating she would pass that along to defense counsel and adding, “Any other thoughts?” When Lourie gave no further response, Villafafia informed defense counsel that Lourie had rejected the proposed immigration language. OPR questioned the subjects about the USAO’s agreement not to prosecute “any potential co-conspirators.” Lourie did not recall why the USAO agreed to it, but he speculated that he left that provision in the NPA because he believed at the time that it benefited the government in some way. In particular, Lourie conjectured that the promise not to prosecute “any potential co-conspirators” protected victims who had recruited others and thus potentially were co-conspirators in Epstein’s scheme. Lourie also told OPR, “I bet the answer was that we weren’t going to charge” Epstein’s accomplices, because Acosta “didn’t really want to charge Epstein” in 123 Villafafia noted that she had consulted with a USAO employee who was a “former corporate counsel from a hospital” about the § 2255 language, and thought that the revised language “addresses the concern about having an unlimited number of claimed victims, without me trying to bind girls who I do not represent.” 14 Villafafia gave OPR an explanation similar to that given by the case agents—that an ICE Special Agent had been involved in the early stages of the federal investigation of Epstein, and Villafafia believed the agent knew two of Epstein’s female assistants were foreign nationals and would have acted appropriately on that information. Villafafia also said that the USAO generally did not get involved in immigration issues. 80 DOJ-OGR-00004404