{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "21",
    "document_number": "293-1",
    "date": "05/25/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 21 of 349\n\nIII. OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR STANDARD, OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN NEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA 134\nA. U.S. Attorneys Have Broad Discretion to Resolve Investigations or Cases as They Deem Appropriate, and Acosta's Decision to Decline to Prosecute Epstein Federally Does Not Constitute Professional Misconduct .............................................................................................................................135\nB. No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Precluded Acosta's Use of a Non-Prosecution Agreement to Resolve the Federal Investigation of Epstein .............................................................................................................................136\nC. The NPA's Individual Provisions Did Not Violate Any Clear and Unambiguous Standards .............................................................................................................................137\n1. Acosta Had Authority to Approve an Agreement That Required Epstein to Plead to Offenses Resulting in an 18-Month Term of Incarceration .............................................................................................................................137\n2. The USAO's Agreement Not to Prosecute Unidentified “Potential Co-Conspirators” Did Not Violate a Clear and Unambiguous Department Policy .............................................................................................................................139\n3. The NPA Did Not Violate Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens .............................................................................................................................140\nIV. THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE INFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA TERMS FAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND BENEFITS TO EPSTEIN.............................................................................................................................140\nA. OPR Found No Evidence of Criminal Corruption, Such as Bribery, Gratuity, or Illegal Political or Personal Consideration .............................................................................................................................141\nB. 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 .............................................................................................................................142\n1. The Contemporaneous Records Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the NPA Resulted from Improper Factors .............................................................................................................................142\n2. The Subjects Asserted That They Were Motivated by Reasonable Strategic and Policy Considerations, Not Improper Influences.............................................................................................................................143\n3. Subject and Witness Interviews and Contemporaneous Records Identified Case-Specific Considerations Relating to Evidence, Legal Theories, Litigation Risk, and a Trial's Potential Impact on Victims.............................................................................................................................144\nC. Other Significant Factors Are Inconsistent with a Conclusion That the Subjects' Actions Were Motivated by Improper Influences.............................................................................................................................149\nxviii DOJ-OGR-00004318",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 21 of 349",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR STANDARD, OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN NEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA 134",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. U.S. Attorneys Have Broad Discretion to Resolve Investigations or Cases as They Deem Appropriate, and Acosta's Decision to Decline to Prosecute Epstein Federally Does Not Constitute Professional Misconduct .............................................................................................................................135",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Precluded Acosta's Use of a Non-Prosecution Agreement to Resolve the Federal Investigation of Epstein .............................................................................................................................136",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C. The NPA's Individual Provisions Did Not Violate Any Clear and Unambiguous Standards .............................................................................................................................137",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. Acosta Had Authority to Approve an Agreement That Required Epstein to Plead to Offenses Resulting in an 18-Month Term of Incarceration .............................................................................................................................137",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. The USAO's Agreement Not to Prosecute Unidentified “Potential Co-Conspirators” Did Not Violate a Clear and Unambiguous Department Policy .............................................................................................................................139",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3. The NPA Did Not Violate Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens .............................................................................................................................140",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "IV. THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE INFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA TERMS FAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND BENEFITS TO EPSTEIN.............................................................................................................................140",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. OPR Found No Evidence of Criminal Corruption, Such as Bribery, Gratuity, or Illegal Political or Personal Consideration .............................................................................................................................141",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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 .............................................................................................................................142",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. The Contemporaneous Records Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the NPA Resulted from Improper Factors .............................................................................................................................142",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. The Subjects Asserted That They Were Motivated by Reasonable Strategic and Policy Considerations, Not Improper Influences.............................................................................................................................143",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3. Subject and Witness Interviews and Contemporaneous Records Identified Case-Specific Considerations Relating to Evidence, Legal Theories, Litigation Risk, and a Trial's Potential Impact on Victims.............................................................................................................................144",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C. Other Significant Factors Are Inconsistent with a Conclusion That the Subjects' Actions Were Motivated by Improper Influences.............................................................................................................................149",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "xviii DOJ-OGR-00004318",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Acosta",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Attorneys",
      "USAO",
      "DOJ",
      "OPR"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "05/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "293-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004318"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the Epstein case, discussing the findings of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the handling of the case by U.S. Attorneys."
}