{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "18",
    "document_number": "223",
    "date": "04/20/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 18 of 23\n\nAs to Epstein, the NPA prescribes immunity for three categories of offenses: (i) “the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement”; (ii) “any other offenses” that were the subject of the “joint investigation” by the FBI and the USAO-SDFL; and (iii) “any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation.” NPA at 2. The government’s assertion that the NPA bars prosecution only for “the specific offenses enumerated in the NPA” (Opp. 15-16) deliberately ignores the second and third categories listed above. The second category is significant because, contrary to the government’s argument, the NPA does not purport to “list[] each and every statutory offense under investigation” (see Opp. 15); rather, it states only that the investigation involved offenses “including” those enumerated. NPA at 1. Moreover, the NPA expressly states that the joint investigation included not only offenses committed from approximately 2001 to 2007, but also “Epstein’s background.” Id. The scope of the third category—offenses that arose “from the Federal Grand Jury investigation”—is completely unknown, as the NPA neither defines the term “Federal Grand Jury investigation” nor describes its scope. But the text of the NPA provides no basis for the government’s assertion that Epstein was immunized only as to the specific offenses enumerated on the first two pages.\n\nAs an example, the USAO-SDFL acknowledges that it interviewed Accuser-2 as part of its investigation. Opp. 16 n.9. Thus, the USAO-SDFL obviously was aware of the allegations by Accuser-2 against Epstein as set forth in the Indictment, allegations that entail the 1994-97 time period at issue in this case and the offenses with which Ms. Maxwell is charged. If the NPA were strictly limited to the 2001-07 time period and to the specific offenses enumerated, as\n\n9 Contrary to the government’s argument, Ms. Maxwell does not contend that the NPA “immunize[d] Epstein for his ‘background.’” See Opp. 16 n.9. On its face, however, it immunized Epstein for offenses that were the subject of the joint investigation—an investigation that, according to the NPA, included Epstein’s background. NPA at 1. To the extent that the joint investigation of Epstein’s background uncovered offenses prior to 2001 (such as the conduct underlying the charges against Ms. Maxwell here), the plain language of the NPA immunized Epstein from prosecution for those offenses.\n\n14\nDOJ-OGR-00003891",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 18 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As to Epstein, the NPA prescribes immunity for three categories of offenses: (i) “the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement”; (ii) “any other offenses” that were the subject of the “joint investigation” by the FBI and the USAO-SDFL; and (iii) “any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation.” NPA at 2. The government’s assertion that the NPA bars prosecution only for “the specific offenses enumerated in the NPA” (Opp. 15-16) deliberately ignores the second and third categories listed above. The second category is significant because, contrary to the government’s argument, the NPA does not purport to “list[] each and every statutory offense under investigation” (see Opp. 15); rather, it states only that the investigation involved offenses “including” those enumerated. NPA at 1. Moreover, the NPA expressly states that the joint investigation included not only offenses committed from approximately 2001 to 2007, but also “Epstein’s background.” Id. The scope of the third category—offenses that arose “from the Federal Grand Jury investigation”—is completely unknown, as the NPA neither defines the term “Federal Grand Jury investigation” nor describes its scope. But the text of the NPA provides no basis for the government’s assertion that Epstein was immunized only as to the specific offenses enumerated on the first two pages.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As an example, the USAO-SDFL acknowledges that it interviewed Accuser-2 as part of its investigation. Opp. 16 n.9. Thus, the USAO-SDFL obviously was aware of the allegations by Accuser-2 against Epstein as set forth in the Indictment, allegations that entail the 1994-97 time period at issue in this case and the offenses with which Ms. Maxwell is charged. If the NPA were strictly limited to the 2001-07 time period and to the specific offenses enumerated, as",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "9 Contrary to the government’s argument, Ms. Maxwell does not contend that the NPA “immunize[d] Epstein for his ‘background.’” See Opp. 16 n.9. On its face, however, it immunized Epstein for offenses that were the subject of the joint investigation—an investigation that, according to the NPA, included Epstein’s background. NPA at 1. To the extent that the joint investigation of Epstein’s background uncovered offenses prior to 2001 (such as the conduct underlying the charges against Ms. Maxwell here), the plain language of the NPA immunized Epstein from prosecution for those offenses.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "14",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003891",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell",
      "Accuser-2"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "USAO-SDFL"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/20/21",
      "2001",
      "2007",
      "1994",
      "1997"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 223",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003891"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, discussing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein."
}