{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "168",
    "document_number": "293-1",
    "date": "05/25/21",
    "document_type": "Report",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "to prosecute all of Epstein's co-conspirators. These factors are analyzed in the following discussions throughout this Section of the Report.\n\nAs a threshold matter, OPR's investigation of the subjects' decisions and actions in the Epstein matter uncovered no evidence of corruption such as bribery, gratuity, or illegal political or personal consideration. In addition, OPR examined the extensive contemporaneous documentary record, interviewed witnesses, and questioned the subject attorneys. The evidence shows three sets of issues influenced Acosta's decision to resolve the case through the NPA. The first—of main concern to Acosta—involved considerations of federalism and deference to state authority. The second arose from an assessment by Acosta's senior advisers—Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie—that the case carried substantial litigation risks, including both witness issues and what some viewed as a novel application of certain federal statutes to the facts of the Epstein case.208 The third was Acosta's aim of obtaining a greater measure of justice for victims of Epstein's conduct and for the community than that proposed by the state.\n\nAlthough the NPA and the process for reaching it can be criticized, as OPR does, OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that the subjects were motivated by a desire to benefit Epstein for personal gain or because of other improper considerations, such as Epstein's wealth, status, or associations. That is not to say that Epstein received no benefit from his enormous wealth. He was able to hire nationally known attorneys who had prestige, skill, and extensive experience in federal and state criminal law and in conducting negotiations. He had the resources to finance an aggressive approach to the case that included the preparation of multiple written submissions reflecting extensive research and analysis, as well as multiple in-person meetings involving several of his attorneys and USAO personnel. He assembled a defense team well versed in the USAO and the Department, with the knowledge to maneuver through the Department's various levels and offices, a process unknown to many criminal defense attorneys and infrequently used even by those familiar with the Department's hierarchy. Access to highly skilled and prominent attorneys is not unusual in criminal cases involving corporations and their officers or certain other white collar defendants, but it is not so typical for defendants charged with sex crimes or violent offenses. Nonetheless, while recognizing that Epstein's wealth played a role in the outcome because he was able to hire skilled and assertive attorneys, OPR concludes that the subjects were not motivated to resolve the federal investigation to Epstein's benefit by improper factors.\n\nA. OPR Found No Evidence of Criminal Corruption, Such as Bribery, Gratuity, or Illegal Political or Personal Consideration\n\nSome public criticism of the USAO's handling of the Epstein matter implied that the subjects' decisions or actions may have been motivated by criminal corruption, although no specific information substantiating such implications was identified. Throughout its investigation,\n\n208 Sloman asserted throughout his OPR interview that he did not participate in substantive discussions about the Epstein investigation before the NPA was signed, and his attorney argued in his comments on OPR's draft report that OPR should not attribute to Sloman any input in Acosta's decisions about how to resolve the case. However, Sloman was included in numerous emails discussing the merits of and issues relating to the investigation, participated in meetings with the defense team, and, according to Acosta, was one of the senior managers whom Acosta consulted in determining how to resolve the Epstein investigation.",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "to prosecute all of Epstein's co-conspirators. These factors are analyzed in the following discussions throughout this Section of the Report.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As a threshold matter, OPR's investigation of the subjects' decisions and actions in the Epstein matter uncovered no evidence of corruption such as bribery, gratuity, or illegal political or personal consideration. In addition, OPR examined the extensive contemporaneous documentary record, interviewed witnesses, and questioned the subject attorneys. The evidence shows three sets of issues influenced Acosta's decision to resolve the case through the NPA. The first—of main concern to Acosta—involved considerations of federalism and deference to state authority. The second arose from an assessment by Acosta's senior advisers—Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie—that the case carried substantial litigation risks, including both witness issues and what some viewed as a novel application of certain federal statutes to the facts of the Epstein case.208 The third was Acosta's aim of obtaining a greater measure of justice for victims of Epstein's conduct and for the community than that proposed by the state.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although the NPA and the process for reaching it can be criticized, as OPR does, OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that the subjects were motivated by a desire to benefit Epstein for personal gain or because of other improper considerations, such as Epstein's wealth, status, or associations. That is not to say that Epstein received no benefit from his enormous wealth. He was able to hire nationally known attorneys who had prestige, skill, and extensive experience in federal and state criminal law and in conducting negotiations. He had the resources to finance an aggressive approach to the case that included the preparation of multiple written submissions reflecting extensive research and analysis, as well as multiple in-person meetings involving several of his attorneys and USAO personnel. He assembled a defense team well versed in the USAO and the Department, with the knowledge to maneuver through the Department's various levels and offices, a process unknown to many criminal defense attorneys and infrequently used even by those familiar with the Department's hierarchy. Access to highly skilled and prominent attorneys is not unusual in criminal cases involving corporations and their officers or certain other white collar defendants, but it is not so typical for defendants charged with sex crimes or violent offenses. Nonetheless, while recognizing that Epstein's wealth played a role in the outcome because he was able to hire skilled and assertive attorneys, OPR concludes that the subjects were not motivated to resolve the federal investigation to Epstein's benefit by improper factors.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. OPR Found No Evidence of Criminal Corruption, Such as Bribery, Gratuity, or Illegal Political or Personal Consideration",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Some public criticism of the USAO's handling of the Epstein matter implied that the subjects' decisions or actions may have been motivated by criminal corruption, although no specific information substantiating such implications was identified. Throughout its investigation,",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "208 Sloman asserted throughout his OPR interview that he did not participate in substantive discussions about the Epstein investigation before the NPA was signed, and his attorney argued in his comments on OPR's draft report that OPR should not attribute to Sloman any input in Acosta's decisions about how to resolve the case. However, Sloman was included in numerous emails discussing the merits of and issues relating to the investigation, participated in meetings with the defense team, and, according to Acosta, was one of the senior managers whom Acosta consulted in determining how to resolve the Epstein investigation.",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Acosta",
      "Sloman",
      "Menchel",
      "Lourie"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "Department",
      "OPR"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "05/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "293-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004465"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a report from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 168 of 349."
}