DOJ-OGR-00009595.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 33 of51 New York, whereas the conspiracy charged in Count Five largely concerned conduct that took place in Florida. Although the conspiracy overlapped in geographic scope, the locus of each count was distinct and weighs against a claim of multiplicity. 6. Similarity of Operation, Common Objectives, and Degree of Interdependence Finally, the conspiracies charged in Counts Three and Five were fundamentally independent schemes, with different objectives and modes of operation. While the defendant claims that the Government argued at trial that only one scheme existed, the trial record proves otherwise. In particular, the Government’s opening statement made clear that the Government intended to prove that the defendant sexually exploited underage girls through different conspiratorial schemes. The first scheme, charged in Count Three, occurred largely in the 1990s, and involved establishing mentoring relationships with victims to groom them to travel to Epstein’s properties for sexual abuse. See Tr. 40:8-25 (describing an “earlier phase” of the defendant’s crimes that involved developing relationships with victims, and the defendant’s later participation in a “pyramid scheme of abuse” in which victims recruited other victims for so-called “massage” appointments). The second scheme, in the 2000s, involved paying victims for so-called “massage” appointments, where they were sexually exploited. /d. The Government described the different schemes in the same manner during summations. See Tr. 2885-87 (describing the timeline of events, and the shift between an earlier scheme and a later pyramid scheme involving victims recruiting victims). 32 DOJ-OGR-00009595