{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "47",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 47 of 239\n\"a direct and primary object of the contracting parties was to confer a benefit on the third party.\"\nFla. W. Int'l Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d at 1228 (quoting Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 982 (11th Cir. 2005)). In other words, \"the intent of the parties is the key\" to evaluating whether an individual is a third party beneficiary. Id.\nHere, the defendant has offered no evidence that the parties intended to confer a benefit on her in particular, or that her crimes in the 1990s make her a member of the class of \"co-conspirators\" the parties had in mind when they negotiated the NPA. To the contrary, the OPR's investigation of the circumstances surrounding the inclusion of this provision in the NPA strongly undercuts any such argument, and OPR's findings demonstrate that the parties did not intend to confer a benefit on the defendant. With respect to the \"co-conspirator\" provision, the OPR Report concluded, in relevant part:\nOther than various drafts of the NPA and of a federal plea agreement, OPR found little in the contemporaneous records mentioning the provision and nothing indicating that the subjects discussed or debated it—or even gave it much consideration. Drafts of the NPA and of the federal plea agreement show that the final broad language promising not to prosecute \"any potential co-conspirators of Epstein\" evolved from a more narrow provision sought by the defense. The provision expanded as [USAO-SDFL prosecutor Maria] Villafaña and defense counsel exchanged drafts of, first, a proposed federal plea agreement and, then, of the NPA, with apparently little analysis and no substantive discussion within the USAO about the Provision.\nOPR Report at 166. With respect to Maxwell in particular, OPR interviewed Maria Villafaña, the lead prosecutor on the case, and noted:\nVillafaña acknowledged that investigators were aware of Epstein's longtime relationship with a close female friend who was a well-known socialite, but, according to Villafaña, in 2007, they \"didn't have any specific evidence against her.\" Accordingly, Villafaña believed that the only \"co-conspirators\" of Epstein who would benefit from the provision were the four female assistants identified by name.\n20\nDOJ-OGR-00002981",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 47 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"a direct and primary object of the contracting parties was to confer a benefit on the third party.\"\nFla. W. Int'l Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d at 1228 (quoting Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 982 (11th Cir. 2005)). In other words, \"the intent of the parties is the key\" to evaluating whether an individual is a third party beneficiary. Id.\nHere, the defendant has offered no evidence that the parties intended to confer a benefit on her in particular, or that her crimes in the 1990s make her a member of the class of \"co-conspirators\" the parties had in mind when they negotiated the NPA. To the contrary, the OPR's investigation of the circumstances surrounding the inclusion of this provision in the NPA strongly undercuts any such argument, and OPR's findings demonstrate that the parties did not intend to confer a benefit on the defendant. With respect to the \"co-conspirator\" provision, the OPR Report concluded, in relevant part:",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Other than various drafts of the NPA and of a federal plea agreement, OPR found little in the contemporaneous records mentioning the provision and nothing indicating that the subjects discussed or debated it—or even gave it much consideration. Drafts of the NPA and of the federal plea agreement show that the final broad language promising not to prosecute \"any potential co-conspirators of Epstein\" evolved from a more narrow provision sought by the defense. The provision expanded as [USAO-SDFL prosecutor Maria] Villafaña and defense counsel exchanged drafts of, first, a proposed federal plea agreement and, then, of the NPA, with apparently little analysis and no substantive discussion within the USAO about the Provision.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "OPR Report at 166. With respect to Maxwell in particular, OPR interviewed Maria Villafaña, the lead prosecutor on the case, and noted:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Villafaña acknowledged that investigators were aware of Epstein's longtime relationship with a close female friend who was a well-known socialite, but, according to Villafaña, in 2007, they \"didn't have any specific evidence against her.\" Accordingly, Villafaña believed that the only \"co-conspirators\" of Epstein who would benefit from the provision were the four female assistants identified by name.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002981",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maria Villafaña",
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "USAO-SDFL",
      "OPR"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "2007",
      "1990s",
      "2005"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002981"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The text discusses the intent of the parties involved in a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and whether it was meant to benefit certain individuals. The document includes quotes from legal precedents and references to specific reports and investigations."
}