{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "195",
    "document_number": "204-3",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 195 of 348\n\ninvestigation.243 Media reports in mid-2009 suggested Epstein was released from his state incarceration \"early\" because he was assisting in a financial crimes investigation in the Eastern District of New York involving Epstein's former employer, Bear Stearns. At the time, Villafaña was notified by the AUSAs handling the matter that they \"had never heard of\" Epstein and he was providing \"absolutely no cooperation\" to the government. In 2011, Villafaña reported to senior colleagues that \"this is urban myth. The FBI and I looked into this and do not believe that any of it is true.\" Villafaña told OPR that the rumor that Epstein had cooperated with the case in New York was \"completely false.\" Acosta told OPR that he did not have any information about Epstein cooperating in a financial investigation or relating to media reports that Epstein had been an \"intelligence asset.\"244\n\nIn addition to the contemporaneous record attesting that Epstein was not a cooperating witness in a federal matter, OPR found no evidence suggesting that Epstein was such a cooperating witness or \"intelligence asset,\" or that anyone—including any of the subjects of OPR's investigation—believed that to be the case, or that Epstein was afforded any benefit on such a basis. OPR did not find any reference to Epstein's purported cooperation, or even a suggestion that he had assisted in a different matter, in any of the numerous communications sent by defense counsel to the USAO and the Department. It is highly unlikely that defense counsel would have omitted any reason warranting leniency for Epstein if it had existed.\n\nAccordingly, OPR concludes that none of the subjects of OPR's investigation provided Epstein with any benefits on the basis that he was a cooperating witness in an unrelated federal investigation, and OPR found no evidence establishing that Epstein had received benefits for cooperation in any matter.\n\nV. ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY RESOLVING THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE NPA\n\nAlthough OPR finds that none of the subjects committed professional misconduct in this matter, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he agreed to end the federal investigation through the NPA. Acosta's flawed application of Petite policy principles to this case and his concerns with overstepping the boundaries of federalism led to a decision to resolve the federal investigation through an NPA that was too difficult to administer, leaving Epstein free to manipulate the conditions of his sentence to his own advantage. The NPA relied on state authorities to implement its key terms, leading to an absence of control by federal authorities over the process. Although the prosecutors considered certain events that they addressed in the NPA, such as gain time and community control, many other key issues were not, such as work release and mechanisms for implementing the § 2255 provision. Important provisions, such as promising not to prosecute all \"potential co-conspirators,\" were added with little discussion or consideration by the prosecutors. In addition, although there were evidentiary and legal challenges to a\n\n243 See, e.g., Julie K. Brown, \"Perversion of Justice: How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime,\" Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018.\n244 When OPR asked Acosta about his apparent equivocation during his 2019 press conference, in answering a media question about whether he had knowledge of Epstein being an \"intelligence asset,\" Acosta stated to OPR that \"the answer is no.\" Acosta was made aware that OPR could use a classified setting to discuss intelligence information.\n\n169\nDOJ-OGR-00003371",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 195 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "investigation.243 Media reports in mid-2009 suggested Epstein was released from his state incarceration \"early\" because he was assisting in a financial crimes investigation in the Eastern District of New York involving Epstein's former employer, Bear Stearns. At the time, Villafaña was notified by the AUSAs handling the matter that they \"had never heard of\" Epstein and he was providing \"absolutely no cooperation\" to the government. In 2011, Villafaña reported to senior colleagues that \"this is urban myth. The FBI and I looked into this and do not believe that any of it is true.\" Villafaña told OPR that the rumor that Epstein had cooperated with the case in New York was \"completely false.\" Acosta told OPR that he did not have any information about Epstein cooperating in a financial investigation or relating to media reports that Epstein had been an \"intelligence asset.\"244",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In addition to the contemporaneous record attesting that Epstein was not a cooperating witness in a federal matter, OPR found no evidence suggesting that Epstein was such a cooperating witness or \"intelligence asset,\" or that anyone—including any of the subjects of OPR's investigation—believed that to be the case, or that Epstein was afforded any benefit on such a basis. OPR did not find any reference to Epstein's purported cooperation, or even a suggestion that he had assisted in a different matter, in any of the numerous communications sent by defense counsel to the USAO and the Department. It is highly unlikely that defense counsel would have omitted any reason warranting leniency for Epstein if it had existed.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Accordingly, OPR concludes that none of the subjects of OPR's investigation provided Epstein with any benefits on the basis that he was a cooperating witness in an unrelated federal investigation, and OPR found no evidence establishing that Epstein had received benefits for cooperation in any matter.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "V. ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY RESOLVING THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE NPA",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although OPR finds that none of the subjects committed professional misconduct in this matter, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he agreed to end the federal investigation through the NPA. Acosta's flawed application of Petite policy principles to this case and his concerns with overstepping the boundaries of federalism led to a decision to resolve the federal investigation through an NPA that was too difficult to administer, leaving Epstein free to manipulate the conditions of his sentence to his own advantage. The NPA relied on state authorities to implement its key terms, leading to an absence of control by federal authorities over the process. Although the prosecutors considered certain events that they addressed in the NPA, such as gain time and community control, many other key issues were not, such as work release and mechanisms for implementing the § 2255 provision. Important provisions, such as promising not to prosecute all \"potential co-conspirators,\" were added with little discussion or consideration by the prosecutors. In addition, although there were evidentiary and legal challenges to a",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "243 See, e.g., Julie K. Brown, \"Perversion of Justice: How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime,\" Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "244 When OPR asked Acosta about his apparent equivocation during his 2019 press conference, in answering a media question about whether he had knowledge of Epstein being an \"intelligence asset,\" Acosta stated to OPR that \"the answer is no.\" Acosta was made aware that OPR could use a classified setting to discuss intelligence information.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "169",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003371",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Villafaña",
      "Acosta",
      "Julie K. Brown"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "Bear Stearns",
      "USAO",
      "Department of Justice"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Miami"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "mid-2009",
      "2011",
      "Nov. 28, 2018",
      "2019",
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003371"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is from page 195 of a 348-page document."
}