{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "document_number": "293",
    "date": "05/25/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293 Filed 05/25/21 Page 7 of 32\nconspiracies (Counts One and Three) to 2004 based entirely on Accuser-4's allegations. But these offenses are the exact same offenses that were the subject of the Florida Investigation and resolved by the NPA, which covers \"any potential co-conspirators of Epstein,\" including Ms. Maxwell.\nThe Court ruled unequivocally that the NPA covers \"any involvement of [Ms.] Maxwell in offenses committed by Epstein from 2001 to 2007, other offenses that were the subject of the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office investigation, and any offenses that arose from the related grand jury investigation.\" (Dkt. 207 at 7). Yet Counts Five and Six fall squarely within all three categories of offenses for which the NPA immunizes Ms. Maxwell:\n- The allegations of Accuser-4 fall within the 2001-2007 timeframe and the new counts charge violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, a statute specifically enumerated in the NPA.\n- The Palm Beach FBI and the USAO-SDFL thoroughly investigated Accuser-4's allegations as part of the Florida Investigation.\n- Accuser-4's allegations were presented to the grand jury in that District and formed the basis for a conspiracy charge and a sex trafficking charge in a proposed 60-count federal indictment of Epstein that was dropped pursuant to the terms of the NPA.\nBecause Counts Five and Six are based on the exact same evidence investigated and presented to the SDFL grand jury in 2008, and are the exact same crimes included in the proposed SDFL indictment against Epstein later abandoned pursuant to the NPA, the government cannot now charge Ms. Maxwell with these offenses.\nFurther, the NPA binds the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (\"USAO-SDNY\") as to the newly-indicted counts. We understand that the Court previously ruled that under United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) and its progeny, the language and drafting history of the NPA does not \"affirmatively appear\" to bind this District\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00004272",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293 Filed 05/25/21 Page 7 of 32",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "conspiracies (Counts One and Three) to 2004 based entirely on Accuser-4's allegations. But these offenses are the exact same offenses that were the subject of the Florida Investigation and resolved by the NPA, which covers \"any potential co-conspirators of Epstein,\" including Ms. Maxwell.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court ruled unequivocally that the NPA covers \"any involvement of [Ms.] Maxwell in offenses committed by Epstein from 2001 to 2007, other offenses that were the subject of the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office investigation, and any offenses that arose from the related grand jury investigation.\" (Dkt. 207 at 7). Yet Counts Five and Six fall squarely within all three categories of offenses for which the NPA immunizes Ms. Maxwell:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "- The allegations of Accuser-4 fall within the 2001-2007 timeframe and the new counts charge violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, a statute specifically enumerated in the NPA.\n- The Palm Beach FBI and the USAO-SDFL thoroughly investigated Accuser-4's allegations as part of the Florida Investigation.\n- Accuser-4's allegations were presented to the grand jury in that District and formed the basis for a conspiracy charge and a sex trafficking charge in a proposed 60-count federal indictment of Epstein that was dropped pursuant to the terms of the NPA.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Because Counts Five and Six are based on the exact same evidence investigated and presented to the SDFL grand jury in 2008, and are the exact same crimes included in the proposed SDFL indictment against Epstein later abandoned pursuant to the NPA, the government cannot now charge Ms. Maxwell with these offenses.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Further, the NPA binds the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (\"USAO-SDNY\") as to the newly-indicted counts. We understand that the Court previously ruled that under United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) and its progeny, the language and drafting history of the NPA does not \"affirmatively appear\" to bind this District",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004272",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell",
      "Accuser-4"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "U.S. Attorney's Office",
      "USAO-SDFL",
      "USAO-SDNY"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida",
      "Palm Beach",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "2001",
      "2004",
      "2007",
      "2008",
      "05/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 293",
      "Dkt. 207",
      "18 U.S.C. § 1591",
      "771 F.2d 670",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004272"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It discusses the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein and its implications for the current charges against Maxwell."
}