EFTA00089677.pdf
PDF Source (No Download)
Extracted Text (OCR)
Case 1:20-mj-00132 ^'
iThnni
•
7
n Page 1 of 33
U.S. District Court
District of New Hampshire (Concord)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20-mi-00132-AJ All Defendants
Case title: USA v. Maxwell
Date Filed: 07/02/2020
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Andrea K.
Johnstone
Defendant (1)
Ghislaine Maxwell
Pending Counts
Disposition
18 U.S.C. 371 CONSPIRACY TO
ENTICE MINORS TO TRAVEL TO
ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS
(1)
18 U.S.C. 2422 and 2 ENTICEMENT OF
A MINOR TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN
ILLEGAL SEX ACTS
(2)
18 U.S.C. 371 CONSPIRACY TO
TRANSPORT MINORS WITH INTENT
TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL
ACTIVITY
(3)
18 U.S.C. 2423(a) and 2
TRANSPORTATION OF A MINOR
WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN
CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY
(4)
PERJURY
(5-6)
Highest Offense Level (Opening)
Felony
Terminated Counts
Disposition
None
Highest Offense Level (Terminated)
None
EFTA00089677
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document 4 Filed 07/06/20 Page 2 of 33
enMplainIS
None
Disposition
Plaintiff
USA
represented by
US Attorney's Office (NH)
James C Cleveland Federal Bldg
53 Pleasant St, 4th FIr
3301
Email:
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Assistant US Attorney
Date Filed
# Page Docket Text
07/02/2020
Arrest (Removal) of Ghislaine Maxwell.(kad) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020
1
COPY of Warrant and Indictment from Southern District of New York (White
Plains, NY), Case No. 20 CR 330. (kad) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020
NOTICE OF HEARING as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Removal Hearing via Video
Conference set for 7/2/2020 03:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Andrea K.
Johnstone. (kad) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020
2
Public Access Findings as to Ghislaine Maxwell. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge
Andrea K. Johnstone. (bt) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2010
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone:
REMOVAL HEARING as to Ghislaine Maxwell held on 7/2/2020. The court
found the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived and in—court hearing.
Defendant: advised of rights and charges, waived identity hearing. Detention
hearing to be held in rosecuting district. (Court Reporter: Susan Batemmiliwt
(Defts Atty: Lawrence Vogelman) (USP:
(Total Hearing Time: 17 min.) (kad) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
0- 02 2020
;
COMMITMENT TO ANOTHER DISTRICT as to Ghislaine Maxwell.
Defendant committed to District of Southern District of New York. So
Ordered by Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone. (kad) (Entered:
07/06/2020)
EFTA00089678
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document I
Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 29
Mod AO 442 (09113) Arrest Warrant
AUSA Name & Telno
, 212-637-2225
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Southern District of New York
United States of America
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell
Defendant
To:
Any authorized law enforcement officer
20 CR 330
) )
INL Nio
)
)
)
)
ARREST WARRANT
YOU ARE COMMANDED to arrest and bring before a United States magistrate judge without unnecessary delay
(name of person to be arrested)
Ghislaine Maxwell
who is accused of an offense or violation based on the following document filed with the court:
W Indictment
O Superseding Indictment
O Information
O Superseding Information
O Complaint
O Probation Violation Petition
O Supervised Release Violation Petition
This offense is briefly described as follows:
Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 (conspiracy to entice minors)
Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422 and 2 (enticement of a minor)
Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 (conspiracy to transport minors)
Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2423(a) and 2 (transportation ofa minor)
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623 (perjury)
Date:
06/29/2020
City and state:
White Plains, NY
O Violation Notice O Order of the Court
Issuing officer's signature
•
Hon. Lisa Margaret Smith, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Printed name and title
Return
This warrant was received on (date)
, and the person was arrested on (date)
at (city and state)
Date:
Arresting officer's signature
Printed name and title
EFTA00089679
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
SEALED
INDICTMENT
20 Cr.
20 Cr. 330
COUNT ONE
(Conspiracy to Entice Minors to Travel to Engage in
Illegal Sex Acts)
The Grand Jury charges:
OVERVIEW
1.
The charges set forth herein stem from the role
of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, in the sexual exploitation
and abuse of multiple minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein. In
particular, from at least in or about 1994, up to and including
at least in or about 1997, MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and
contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among
other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately
abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age
of 18. The victims were as young as 14 years old when they were
groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew
that certain victims were in fact under the age of 18.
2.
As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to
abuse minor victims, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, and
Jeffrey Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to
EFTA00089680
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 3 of 19
Epstein's residences in different states, which MAXWELL knew and
intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to
sexual abuse. Moreover, in an effort to conceal her crimes,
MAXWELL repeatedly lied when questioned about her conduct,
including in relation to some of the minor victims described
herein, when providing testimony under oath in 2016.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3.
During the time periods charged in this
Indictment, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, had a personal and
professional relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and was among his
closest associates. In particular, between in or about 1994 and
in or about 1997, MAXWELL was in an intimate relationship with
Epstein and also was paid by Epstein to manage his various
properties. Over the course of their relationship, MAXWELL and
Epstein were photographed together on multiple occasions,
including in the below image:
2
EFTA00089681
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document 4 Filed 07/09/20 Page 4 of N
4.
Beginning in at least 1994, GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
the defendant, enticed and groomed multiple minor girls to
engage in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, through a variety of
means and methods, including but not limited to the following:
a.
MAXWELL first attempted to befriend some of
Epstein's minor victims prior to their abuse, including by
asking the victims about their lives, their schools, and their
families. MAXWELL and Epstein would spend time building
friendships with minor victims by, for example, taking minor
victims to the movies or shopping. Some of these outings would
involve MAXWELL and Epstein spending time together with a minor
victim, while some would involve MAXWELL or Epstein spending
time alone with a minor victim.
b.
Having developed a rapport with a victim,
MAXWELL would try to normalize sexual abuse for a minor victim
by, among other things, discussing sexual topics, undressing in
front of the victim, being present when a minor victim was
undressed, and/or being present for sex acts involving the minor
victim and Epstein.
c.
MAXWELL'S presence during minor victims'
interactions with Epstein, including interactions where the
minor victim was undressed or that involved sex acts with
Epstein, helped put the victims at ease because an adult woman
was present. For example, in some instances, MAXWELL would
3
EFTA00089682
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document I
Filed 07/02/20 Page 5 of /9
massage Epstein in front of a minor victim. In other instances,
MAXWELL encouraged minor victims to provide massages to Epstein,
including sexualized massages during which a minor victim would
be fully or partially nude. Many of those massages resulted in
Epstein sexually abusing the minor victims.
d.
In addition, Epstein offered to help some
minor victims by paying for travel and/or educational
opportunities, and MAXWELL encouraged certain victims to accept
Epstein's assistance. As a result, victims were made to feel
indebted and believed that MAXWELL and Epstein were trying to
help them.
e.
Through this process, MAXWELL and Epstein
enticed victims to engage in sexual activity with Epstein. In
some instances, MAXWELL was present for and participated in the
sexual abuse of minor victims. Some such incidents occurred in
the context of massages, which developed into sexual encounters.
5.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated
Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims knowing that he had a
sexual preference for underage girls and that he intended to
engage in sexual activity with those victims. Epstein's
resulting abuse of minor victims included, among other things,
touching a victim's breast, touching a victim's genitals,
placing a sex toy such as a vibrator on a victim's genitals,
4
EFTA00089683
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 6 of 19
directing a victim to touch Epstein while he masturbated, and
directing a victim to touch Epstein's genitals.
MAXWELL AND EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS
6.
Between approximately in or about 1994 and in or
about 1997, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated
Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims by, among other
things, inducing and enticing, and aiding and abetting the
inducement and enticement of, multiple minor victims. Victims
were groomed and/or abused at multiple locations, including the
following:
a.
A a multi-story private residence on the
Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York owned by Epstein (the
•New York Residence"), which is depicted in the following
photograph:
EFTA00089684
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document I
Filed 07/02/20 Page 7 of N
b.
An estate in Palm Beach, Florida owned by
Epstein (the "Palm Beach Residence"), which is depicted in the
following photograph:
c.
A ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico owned by
Epstein (the "New Mexico Residence"), which is depicted in the
following photograph:
6
EFTA00089685
Tlese1/20.8*PRINPAD ID
unienti. iFiked037102a0 FRa,gelDolf1333
England.
d.
MAXWELL's personal residence in London,
7.
Among the victims induced or enticed by GHISLAINE
MAXWELL, the defendant, were minor victims identified herein as
Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3. In
particular, and during time periods relevant to this Indictment,
MAXWELL engaged in the following acts, among others, with
respect to minor victims:
a.
MAXWELL met Minor Victim-1 when Minor
Victim-1 was approximately 14 years old. MAXWELL subsequently
interacted with Minor Victim-1 on multiple occasions at
Epstein's residences, knowing that Minor Victim-1 was under the
age of 18 at the time. During these interactions, which took
place between approximately 1994 and 1997, MAXWELL groomed Minor
Victim-1 to engage in sexual acts with Epstein through multiple
means. First, MAXWELL and Epstein attempted to befriend Minor
Victim-1, taking her to the movies and on shopping trips.
MAXWELL also asked Minor Victim-1 about school, her classes, her
family, and other aspects of her life. MAXWELL then sought to
normalize inappropriate and abusive conduct by, among other
things, undressing in front of Minor Victim-1 and being present
when Minor Victim-1 undressed in front of Epstein. Within the
first year after MAXWELL and Epstein met Minor Victim-1, Epstein
began sexually abusing Minor Victim-1. MAXWELL was present for
7
EFTA00089686
Mase1120frOjaInThwall 10 Ii umentl. Fited037f0M0 iFtageftaff1333
and involved in some of this abuse. In particular, MAXWELL
involved Minor Victim-1 in group sexualized massages of Epstein.
During those group sexualized massages, MAXWELL and/or Minor
Victim-1 would engage in sex acts with Epstein. Epstein and
MAXWELL both encouraged Minor Victim-1 to travel to Epstein's
residences in both New York and Florida. As a result, Minor
Victim-1 was sexually abused by Epstein in both New York and
Florida. Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel across state
lines for the purpose of sexual encounters with Epstein, and
MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with
Minor Victim-1 after Minor-Victim-1 traveled to Epstein's
properties, including in the context of a sexualized massage.
b.
MAXWELL interacted with Minor Victim-2 on at
least one occasion in or about 1996 at Epstein's residence in
New Mexico when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18. Minor
Victim-2 had flown into New Mexico from out of state at
Epstein's invitation for the purpose of being groomed for and/or
subjected to acts of sexual abuse. MAXWELL knew that Minor
Victim-2 was under the age of 18 at the time. While in New
Mexico, MAXWELL and Epstein took Minor Victim-2 to a movie and
MAXWELL took Minor Victim-2 shopping. MAXWELL also discussed
Minor Victim-2's school, classes, and family with Minor Victim-
2. In New Mexico, MAXWELL began her efforts to groom Minor
Victim-2 for abuse by Epstein by, among other things, providing
B
EFTA00089687
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document I
Filed 07/02/20 Page 10 of 19
an unsolicited massage to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor
Victim-2 was topless. MAXWELL also encouraged Minor Victim-2 to
massage Epstein.
c.
MAXWELL groomed and befriended Minor
Victim-3 in London, England between approximately 1994 and 1995,
including during a period of time in which MAXWELL knew that
Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18. Among other things,
MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with Minor
Victim-3. MAXWELL introduced Minor Victim-3 to Epstein and
arranged for multiple interactions between Minor Victim-3 and
Epstein. During those interactions, MAXWELL encouraged Minor
Victim-3 to massage Epstein, knowing that Epstein would engage
in sex acts with Minor Victim-3 during those massages. Minor
Victim-3 provided Epstein with the requested massages, and
during those massages, Epstein sexually abused Minor Victim-3.
MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with
Minor Victim-3 on multiple occasions, including at times when
Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, including in the context
of a sexualized massage.
MAXWELL'S EFFORTS TO CONCEAL HER CONDUCT
8.
In or around 2016, in the context of a deposition
as part of civil litigation, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant,
repeatedly provided false and perjurious statements, under oath,
regarding, among other subjects, her role in facilitating the
9
EFTA00089688
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 11 of 19
abuse of minor victims by Jeffrey Epstein, including some of the
specific events and acts of abuse detailed above.
STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS
9.
From at least in or about 1994, up to and
including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey
Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly
did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with
each other to commit an offense against the United States, to
wit, enticement, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 2422.
10. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others
known and unknown, would and did knowingly persuade, induce,
entice, and coerce 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 Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422.
Overt Acts
11. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect
the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among
others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and
elsewhere:
10
EFTA00089689
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document I
Filed 07/02/20 Page 12 of 29
a.
Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
participated in multiple group sexual encounters with Epstein
and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida.
b.
In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was
under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from
Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the
New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section
130.55.
c.
In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was
under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an
unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2
was topless.
d.
Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in
London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse
Minor Victim-3 during those massages.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)
COUNT TWO
(Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts)
The Grand Jury further charges:
12. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
11
EFTA00089690
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document 3 Filed 07/02/20 Page 13 of 19
13. From at least in or about 1994, up to and
including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did
persuade, induce, entice, and coerce an individual to travel in
interstate and foreign commerce to engage in sexual activity for
which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and
attempted to do the same, and aided and abetted the same, to
wit, MAXWELL persuaded, induced, enticed, and coerced Minor
Victim-1 to travel from Florida to New York, New York on
multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would
engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in
violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422 and 2.)
COUNT THREE
(Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to
Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity)
The Grand Jury further charges:
14. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
15. From at least in or about 1994, up to and
including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey
Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly
did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with
each other to commit an offense against the United States, to
12
EFTA00089691
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document I
Filed 07/02/20 Page 14 of 29
wit, transportation of minors, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 2423(a).
16. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others
known and unknown, would and did, knowingly transport an
individual who had not attained the age of 18 in interstate and
foreign commerce, with intent that the individual engage in
sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a
criminal offense, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 2423(a).
Overt Acts
17. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect
the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among
others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and
elsewhere:
a.
Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
participated in multiple group sexual encounters with EPSTEIN
and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida.
b.
In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was
under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from
Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the
13
EFTA00089692
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document I
Filed 07/02/20 Page 15 of 19
New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section
130.55.
c.
In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was
under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an
unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2
was topless.
d.
Between in or about 1994 and in or about
1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in
London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse
Minor Victim-3 during those massages.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)
COUNT FOUR
(Transportation of a Minor with Intent to
Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity)
The Grand Jury further charges:
18. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
19. From at least in or about 1994, up to and
including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did
transport an individual who had not attained the age of 18 in
interstate and foreign commerce, with the intent that the
individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be
charged with a criminal offense, and attempted to do so, and
14
EFTA00089693
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document I
Filed 07/02/20 Page 16 of 19
aided and abetted the same, to wit, MAXWELL arranged for Minor
Victim-1 to be transported from Florida to New York, New York on
multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would
engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in
violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2423(a) and 2.)
COUNT FIVE
(Perjury)
The Grand Jury further charges:
20. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
21. On or about April 22, 2016, in the Southern
District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having
taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in
connection with a case then pending before the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under
docket number 15 Civ. 7344, knowingly made false material
declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined
false testimony:
Q.
Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit
underage girls for sexual massages? If you know.
A.
I don't know what you're talking about.
15
EFTA00089694
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document I
Filed 07/02/20 Page n of 29
Q.
List all the people under the age of 18 that you
interacted with at any of Jeffrey's properties?
A.
I'm not aware of anybody that I interacted with,
other than obviously [the plaintiff) who was 17
at this point.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.)
COUNT SIX
(Perjury)
The Grand Jury further charges:
22. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
fully set forth within.
23. On or about July 22, 2016, in the Southern
District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having
taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in
connection with a case then pending before the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under
docket number 15 Civ. 7344, knowingly made false material
declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined
false testimony:
Were you aware of the presence of sex toys or
devices used in sexual activities in Mr.
Epstein's Palm Beach house?
A:
No, not that I recall. . . .
Q.
Do you know whether Mr. Epstein possessed sex
toys or devices used in sexual activities?
A.
No.
16
EFTA00089695
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document I
Filed 07/02/20 Page 28 of 19
Q.
Other than yourself and the blond and brunette
that you have identified as having been involved
in three-way sexual activities, with whom did Mr.
Epstein have sexual activities?
A.
I wasn't aware that he was having sexual
activities with anyone when I was with him other
than myself.
Q.
I want to be sure that I'm clear. Is it your
testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were
not aware that Mr. Epstein was having sexual
activities with anyone other than yourself and
the blond and brunette on those few occasions
when they were involved with you?
A.
That is my testimony, that is correct.
•
•
•
Q.
Is it your testimony that you've never given
anybody a massage?
A.
I have not given anyone a massage.
Q •
You never gave Mr. Epstein a massage, is that
your testimony?
A.
That is my testimony.
Q.
You never gave (Minor Victim-2] a massage is your
testimony?
A.
I never gave (Minor Victim-2] a massage.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.)
cE/Ilsm
Itr-
AUDREY S RAUSS
Acting nited States Attorney
17
EFTA00089696
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 19 of 19
Form No. USA-33s-274 (Ed. 9-25-58)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
INDICTMENT
(18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1623, 2422, 2423(a),
and 2)
AUDREY STRAUSS
Acting United States Attorney
if!
Foreperson
18
EFTA00089697
Cetase11220M*00132aAJ Ceooctreent12 rFilOcD077102/20 Raggel of 73
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell
Case No. 20-mj-132-AJ-1
Public Access Findings
I.
Background
This hearing is taking place during the public health
emergency caused by the COVID-19 outbreak. All parties to this
proceeding, including the court, are appearing remotely via
video. In light of the anticipated volume of public and media
interest and the operational/capacity limitations of
videoconference technology, public and media access to the
proceeding will be via telephonic conference. The court's
protocols for this hearing are laid out in Standing Order 20-7
(Mar. 23, 2020).1 The court finds that conducting this hearing
via video — under the unique circumstances presented by the
COVID-19 pandemic — is the best way to ensure the safety of the
litigants, court personnel, and the public at large. All
findings made in the court's prior standing orders are
2 Standing Order 20-7 was extended to August 1, 2020 by
Standing Order 20-21 (June 17, 2020).
1
EFTA00089698
02ase11220nyip00132NAJ CDoottreen42 FFFildel)07n02/20 Flagge2 of Z3
incorporated herein. See Standing Orders 20-5 (Mar. 20, 2020)
and 20-21 (June 17, 2020).2
The hearing held today will be an initial appearance and
removal hearing for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. Today's
hearing has been noticed as a video hearing. In the event
defendant consents to proceed, the court makes the findings
below.
Before convening this video/telephone hearing, the court
carefully considered the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to
public court proceedings and the public's and press's First
Amendment rights to in-person access to such proceedings. See
Bucci v. United States, 662 F.3d 18. 22 (1st Cir. 2011) (citing
Waller v. Georgia 467 U.S. 39. 48 (1984)); Press-Enter. Co. v.
Superior Court of California, Riverside Cty., 464 U.S 501. 509-
la (1984). This Order details my findings.
II. Partial Rather Than Total Closure
The court first finds that this video hearing constitutes a
partial, rather than total, closure of these proceedings. The
court so finds because the goals of public access will still be
achieved: this proceeding is not being held in secret and the
public, including members of the press, maintains the
2 All the court's Standing Orders regarding the COVID-19
outbreak can be found here: http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/court-
response-coronavirus-disease-covid-19.
2
EFTA00089699
O2aed.1220:app0M132NAJ Ctoonnietitl2 FFFildth0F102/00 PRggE23 of 33
opportunity to access this proceeding in real time. See
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia 448 U.S. 555. 593-97
(1980) (Brennan, J., concurring) (discussing the functions of
public access to court proceedings, including ensuring that
procedural rights are respected and that justice is afforded
equally, maintaining public confidence in the administration of
justice, promoting accurate fact-finding, and enabling the
public to act as a check on judicial power); see also Bucci, kka
F.ld at 27 (discussing benefits of openness in criminal
proceedings). Under the extraordinary circumstances presented
by the continuing C0VID-19 pandemic, the court finds this
partial closure is necessary.
III. Findings in Support of Necessity for this Partial Closure
A. First, the court finds that protecting the health and
safety of the public and the parties to this proceeding
from the spread of COVID-19 is a substantial interest that
would be jeopardized and prejudiced if the court did not
impose this partial closure.
Since the first announced case in New Hampshire on March 2,
2020, the state has reported 5,802 confirmed cases of C0VID-19.3
So far, 373 deaths have been attributed to the disease in this
3 C0VID-19, N.H. Dep't of Health and Human Servs.,
https://www.nh.gov/covidl9/ (last visited 12:00 p.m. July 2,
2020); Explore the Data: Tracking C0VID-19 in New Hampshire,
N.H. Pub. Radio, https://www.nhpr.org/post/updated-tracking-
covid-19-cases-and-testing-new-hampshire#stream/0 (last visited
12:00 p.m. July 2, 2020).
3
EFTA00089700
02ase112204cpp003432kAJ CDooureent42 FFFileith0/202/20 PRgga4 of 73
state. Further, in New Hampshire approximately 3,475 people are
being monitored for signs of C0VID-19 infection, over 120,307
total tests have been reported (both positive and negative test
results), and community-based transmission has been confirmed."
Nationally, the number of confirmed cases has grown to over
2,797,737, with 130,984 cases resulting in death.5
Given the contagious nature of the virus and the
exponential growth in cases, C0VID-19 presents an enormous
danger to the health and safety of the public, including the
litigants, security, and court personnel involved in this
proceeding. The court's interest in preventing the spread of
C0VID-19 and preserving the health of all hearing participants,
including the public, is a weighty and substantial interest that
would likely be prejudiced if the court were not to impose this
partial closure. See United States v. Smith 426 F 3d 567. 572-
2a (2d Cir. 2005) (finding that U.S. Marshal's policy after
September 11th of requiring unknown visitors to court to produce
photo identification constituted partial closure of courtroom
4 C0VID-19, N.H. Dep't of Health and Human Servs.,
https://www.nh.gov/covidl9/ (last visited 12:00 p.m. July 2,
2020); Explore the Data: Tracking C0VID-19 in New Hampshire,
N.H. Pub. Radio, https://www.nhpr.org/post/updated-tracking-
covid-19-cases-and-testing-new-hampshire#stream/0 (last visited
12:00 p.m. July 2, 2020).
5 Real Clear Politics, https://www.realclearpolitics.com/
(last visited 12:45 p.m. July 2, 2020).
4
EFTA00089701
Cetase11220mip00132NAJ CDoortment12 FFFileith07/362220 PEIgge5 of 13
that was justified by substantial interest of promoting security
and preventing terrorism).
B. Second, the court finds that this partial closure of court
proceedings is narrowly tailored to protect public health
and safety and is less restrictive than the court's current
in-court hearing protocols.
Allowing the public to access these proceedings through
telephone conference allows a large number (up to 500) of
members of the public to access the proceedings while, at the
same time, protecting the health of all involved by limiting the
potential exposure of the public, parties, and court staff to
COVID-19.
Importantly, the court finds that, in light of the court's
current restrictions on the number of people permitted in the
courtroom, providing public telephonic access is less
restrictive than holding an in-person hearing which only a
limited number of people can attend. Further, via telephone,
even individuals who would have otherwise been prohibited from
entering the courthouse — for example, people who have tested
positive for COVID-19 — now have access (even though virtual) to
the proceedings. See Standing Order 20-9 (Mar. 20, 2020)
(prohibiting certain individuals from entering the courthouse,
including people diagnosed with or exposed to someone diagnosed
with COVID-19). Providing the public access to this proceeding
via telephone is the least restrictive means of protecting the
5
EFTA00089702
atase11220"app001324.43 aDootgreentI2 FFFileith0V02/20 FEtggiE26 of Z3
substantial interest of public health and safety. See United
States v. Alimehmeti, 284 F. Cupp. 'id 477. 490 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
(granting partial closure of courtroom to protect identity of
undercover agents: courtroom was closed to public during
undercover agents' testimony but audio of testimony was live-
streamed into different courtroom during partial closure and
transcripts of testimony were made available to public
promptly).
C. Third, the court has considered reasonable alternatives to
this partial closure.
The court has considered alternatives to this partial
closure and finds they are neither reasonable nor feasible under
the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and this case,
particularly the necessity that this hearing be conducted
promptly.
IV. Conclusion
In sum, the court finds that in this case a partial closure
of court proceedings is necessary in that today's hearing will
be conducted by video and telephone conference. This partial
closure is justified by the substantial interest of protecting
public health and safety from the spread of COVID-19 and is
narrowly tailored to protect that interest. The public
maintains the opportunity to access these proceedings in full by
telephone.
6
EFTA00089703
(rase V.204ipp0M1324.4J CIDoocm3ent12 FFFileith07/362220 Ragged of 73
SO ORDERED.
.aetsuaa4i4inta_.
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
July 2, 2020
cc: Counsel of record
7
EFTA00089704
alase112204)*002324.413 CDootfttieftt13 EFFilek1)071102720 PRgge of 23
AD 01 (Row 06/091 ranoniteneni to Another Markt MR 061001
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell
Case No. 20-mj-I32-01-AJ
Charging District Case No. 20 CR 330
COMMITMENT TO ANOTHER DISTRICT
The defendant has been charged by way of with a violation of , alleged to have been
committed in the Southern District of New York.
Brief Description of Charge(s):
18 U.S.C. 371 CONSPIRACY TO ENTICE MINORS TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN
ILLEGAL SEX ACTS
18 U.S.C. 2422 and 2 ENTICEMENT OF A MINOR TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL
SEX ACTS
18 U.S.C. 371 CONSPIRACY TO TRANSPORT MINORS WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN
CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY
18 U.S.C. 2423(a) and 2 TRANSPORTATION OF A MINOR WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN
CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY
PERJURY
CURRENT BOND STATUS:
Bail fixed S
and conditions were not met.
Government moved for detention and defendant detained after hearing in District of
Arrest.
Government moved for detention and defendant detained pending detention hearing
in District of Offense.
El Other (specify):
REPRESENTATION: Lawrence Vogelman, Esq.
INTERPRETER REOUIRED: No
20-mj-I32-01-AJ USA v. Maxwell
EFTA00089705
CGasOl.12flairop003132AAJ CD000reent13 FIRkld)07/J02200 PRg9632 of 23
The United States marshal must transport the defendant, together with a copy of this
order, to the charging district and deliver the defendant to the United States marshal for that
district, or to another officer authorized to receive the defendant. The marshal or officer in the
charging district should immediately notify the United States attorney and the clerk of court for
that district of the defendant's arrival so that further proceedings may be promptly scheduled.
The clerk of this district must promptly transmit the papers and any bail to the charging district.
SO ORDERED.
July 2, 2020
LGucuat, 11:71ervehl-e-
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
RETURN
THIS COMMITMENT WAS RECEIVED AND EXECUTED AS FOLLOWS:
DAIS COMMITMECT ORDER RECEIVED
PLACE OFCOMMITME•T
DATE DEFECDANT COMMITTED
DATE
UM1ED STATES MARSHAL
OM DEPUTY MARSHAL
EFTA00089706
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document 4 Filed 07/06/20 Page 31 of 33
MIME-Version:1.0
From:ecf_bounce@nhd.uscourts.gov
To:nef@nhd.uscourts.gov
Bcc:
--Case Participants:
--Non Case Participants: US Marshal
I
US
--No Notice Sent:
Probation
(caseview.ecf@usdoj.gov,
cfcriminal@usdoj.gov, usanh.ecfdocket@usdoj.gov)
(nhpdb_cmecf@nhp.uscourts.gov)
Message-Id:2213049@nhd.uscourts.gov
Subject:Activity in Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ USA v. Maxwell Notice of Hearing
Content—Type: text/html
U.S. District Court
District of New Hampshire
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 7/2/2020 at 12:09 PM EDT and filed on 7/2/2020
Case Name:
USA v. Maxwell
Case Number:
1.20-m.-00132—AJ
Filer:
Document Number: No document attached
Docket Text:
NOTICE OF HEARING as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Removal Hearing via Video Conference set
for 7/2/2020 03:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone. (kad)
1:20-mj-00132—A,l—1 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
n
bsp 8mbsp
CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov,
, USANH.ECFCriminal@usdoj.gov, USANH.ECFDocket@usdoj.gov
1:20-n1j-00132—Ai—I Notice, to the extent appropriate, must be delivered conventionally to:
EFTA00089707
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document 4 Filed 07/06/20 Page 32 of 33
MIME-Version:1.0
From:ecf_bounce@nhd.uscourts.gov
To:nefenhd.uscourts.gov
Bcc:
--Case Participants:
--Non Case Participants:
--No Notice Sent:
caseview.ecf@usdoj.gov,
usan .ecfcriminal@usdoj.gov, usanh.ecfdocket@usdoj.gov)
Message-Id:2213529@nhd.uscourts.gov
Subject:Activity in Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ USA v. Maxwell Removal Hearing
Content—Type: text/html
U.S. District Court
District of New Hampshire
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 7/6/2020 at 9:45 AM EDT and filed on 7/2/2020
Case Name:
USA v. Maxwell
Case Number:
.20—mj-00 i12—A
Filer:
Document Number: No document attached
Docket Text:
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone:
REMOVAL HEARING as to Ghislaine Maxwell held on 7/2/2020. The court found the
defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived and in-court hearing. Defendant: advised of
rights and charges, waived identity hearing. Detention hearin to
secuting
district. (Court Reporter: Su n B
m n Govt Atty:
(Defts Atty:
Lawrence Vogelman) (USP:
(Total Hearing Time: 1 mm.) (kacl)
1:20-n1j-00132—A.1-1 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
   
. CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov,
. •
rinutial@usdoj.gov, USANH.ECFDocket@usdoj.gov
1:20-n1j-00132—A.1-1 Notice, to the extent appropriate; must be delivered conventionally to:
EFTA00089708
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document 4 Filed 07/06/20 Page 33 of 33
MIME-Version:1.0
From:ecf_bounce@nhd.uscourts.gov
To:nef@nhd.uscourts.gov
Bee:
--Case Participants:
--Non Case Participants:
--No Notice Sent:
Message-Id:2212948@nhd.uscourts.gov
Subject:Activity in Case 20-132 Sealed v. Sealed (Redacted Notice)
Content—Type: text/html
NOTE: This docket entry (or case) is sealed, no entail notices have been sent.
U.S. District Court
District of New Hampshire
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 7t2/2020 at 9:45 AM EDT and filed on 7/2/2020
Case Name:
USA v. Maxwell
Case Number:
I :20—mj-00132—AJ *SEALED*
Filer:
Document Number: No document attached
Docket Text:
Arrest (Removal) of Ghislaine Maxwell.(kad)
1:20—mj-00132—AJ *SEALED*-1 No electronic public notice will be sent because the casefentry is
sealed.
EFTA00089709
Document Preview
PDF source document
This document was extracted from a PDF. No image preview is available. The OCR text is shown on the left.
This document was extracted from a PDF. No image preview is available. The OCR text is shown on the left.
Extracted Information
Email Addresses
Phone Numbers
Document Details
| Filename | EFTA00089677.pdf |
| File Size | 3736.9 KB |
| OCR Confidence | 85.0% |
| Has Readable Text | Yes |
| Text Length | 39,888 characters |
| Indexed | 2026-02-11T10:32:35.394162 |