DOJ-OGR-00004466.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 169 of 349 OPR was attentive to any evidence that any of the subjects was motivated by bribes, gratuities, or other illegal political or personal considerations, and found no such indication.’ Witnesses, including law enforcement officials, were specifically asked whether they had any information indicating such corruption, and all—notwithstanding the harsh criticism by some of those same witnesses of the Epstein matter’s outcome—stated that they did not. Specifically, the FBI case agent told OPR that she did not believe there had been any illegal influence, and that if she had perceived any, she “would have gone screaming” to the FBI’s public corruption unit. The co-case agent and the FBI supervisors up through the Special Agent in Charge likewise told OPR that they were unaware of any indication that a prosecutor acted in the matter because of illegal factors such as a gratuity or bribe or other corrupt influence, and that any such indication would immediately have been referred for criminal investigation by the FBI. B. Contemporaneous Written Records and Witness and Subject Interviews Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the Subjects Were Improperly Influenced by Epstein’s Status, Wealth, or Associations Although Epstein’s name is now nationally recognized, in 2006 and 2007, he was not a familiar national figure or even particularly well known in Florida. All five subjects told OPR that when they first learned of the investigation, they had not heard of Epstein. Similarly, the FBI case agent told OPR that when the investigation began, no one in the FBI appeared to have heard of Epstein, and other witnesses also told OPR that they were initially unfamiliar with Epstein. However, news reports about Epstein’s July 2006 arrest on the state indictment, which were contemporaneous with the beginning of the federal investigation, identified him as a wealthy Palm Beach resident with influential contacts, including William Clinton, Donald Trump, Kevin Spacey, and Alan Dershowitz, and other “prominent businessmen, academics and scientists.””!° Villafafia, Lourie, Sloman, and Acosta learned of this press coverage early in the investigation, and thus understood that Epstein was wealthy and associated with notable public figures.7!' The FBI case agent also told OPR that “we knew who had been on his plane, we knew . . . some of his connections.” 1. The Contemporaneous Records Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the NPA Resulted from Improper Factors OPR found no evidence in the extensive contemporaneous documentary record that the terms of the NPA resulted from improper factors, such as Epstein’s wealth or influential connections. Epstein’s legal team overtly raised Epstein’s financial status in arguing for a sentence that did not include a term of imprisonment on the ground that Epstein would be extorted in prison, but the USAO insisted that Epstein serve a term of incarceration. Defense counsel mentioned former President Clinton in one pre-NPA letter, but that reference was made in the context of a 202 OPR’s jurisdiction does not extend to the investigation of allegations of criminal activity. If OPR had found indication of criminal activity, it would have referred the matter to the appropriate Department investigative agencies. a0 Larry Keller, “Billionaire solicited prostitutes three times, indictment says,” Palm Beach Post, July 24, 2006; Nicole Janok, “Consultant to the rich indicted, jailed,” Palm Beach Post, July 24, 2006. aul Lourie later made Menchel aware of Epstein’s prominence in the course of forwarding to Menchel the initial prosecution memorandum. 142 DOJ-OGR-00004466