{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "194",
    "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 194 of 348\n\nLourie described the promise not to prosecute \"potential co-conspirators\" as \"unusual,\" and told OPR that he did not know why it was included in the agreement, but added that it would be \"unlike me if I read that language to just leave it in there unless I thought it was somehow helpful.\" Lourie posited that victims who recruited other underage girls to provide massages for Epstein \"theoretically\" could have been charged as co-conspirators. He told OPR that when he saw the provision, he may have understood the reference to unnamed \"co-conspirators\" as \"a message to any victims that had recruited other victims that there was no intent to charge them.\"\n\nAcosta did not recall any discussions about the non-prosecution provision. But he told OPR that Epstein was always \"the focus\" of the federal investigation, and he would have viewed the federal interests as vindicated as long as Epstein was required to face \"meaningful consequences\" for his actions. Acosta told OPR that when he reviewed the draft NPA, \"[t]o the extent I reviewed this co-conspirator provision, I can speculate that my thinking would have been the focus is on Epstein[ ] . . . going to jail. Whether some of his employees go to jail, or other, lesser involved [individuals], is not the focus of this.\" Acosta also told OPR that he assumed Villafaña and Lourie had considered the provision and decided that it was appropriate. Finally, Sloman, who was not involved in negotiating the NPA, told OPR that in retrospect, he understood the non-prosecution provision was designed to protect Epstein's four assistants, and it \"never dawned\" on him that it was intended to shield anyone else.\n\nThis broad provision promising not to prosecute \"any potential co-conspirators\" is troubling and, as discussed more fully later in this Report, OPR did not find evidence showing that the subjects gave careful consideration to the potential scope of the provision or whether it was warranted given that the investigation had been curtailed and the USAO lacked complete information regarding possible co-conspirators. Villafaña precipitously revised a more narrow provision sought by the defense. Given its evolution from a provision sought by the defense, it appears unlikely to have been designed to protect the victims, and there is no indication that at the time, the subjects believed that was the purpose. However, the USAO had not indicated interest in prosecuting anyone other than the four named female assistants, and OPR found no record indicating that Epstein had expressed concern about the prosecutorial fate of anyone other than the four assistants and unnamed employees of a specific Epstein company. Accordingly, OPR concludes that the evidence does not show that Acosta, Lourie, or Villafaña agreed to the non-prosecution provision to protect any of Epstein's political, celebrity, or other influential associates.242\n\nH. OPR's Investigation Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That Epstein Cooperated in Other Federal Investigations or Received Special Treatment on That Basis\n\nOne final issue OPR explored stemmed from media reports suggesting that Epstein may have received special treatment from the USAO in return for his cooperation in another federal\n\n242 As previously stated, Sloman was on vacation when Villafaña included the provision in draft plea agreements and did not monitor the case or comment on the various iterations of the NPA that were circulated during his absence. Menchel left the USAO on August 3, 2007, before the parties drafted the NPA.\n\n168\nDOJ-OGR-00003370",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 194 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Lourie described the promise not to prosecute \"potential co-conspirators\" as \"unusual,\" and told OPR that he did not know why it was included in the agreement, but added that it would be \"unlike me if I read that language to just leave it in there unless I thought it was somehow helpful.\" Lourie posited that victims who recruited other underage girls to provide massages for Epstein \"theoretically\" could have been charged as co-conspirators. He told OPR that when he saw the provision, he may have understood the reference to unnamed \"co-conspirators\" as \"a message to any victims that had recruited other victims that there was no intent to charge them.\"\n\nAcosta did not recall any discussions about the non-prosecution provision. But he told OPR that Epstein was always \"the focus\" of the federal investigation, and he would have viewed the federal interests as vindicated as long as Epstein was required to face \"meaningful consequences\" for his actions. Acosta told OPR that when he reviewed the draft NPA, \"[t]o the extent I reviewed this co-conspirator provision, I can speculate that my thinking would have been the focus is on Epstein[ ] . . . going to jail. Whether some of his employees go to jail, or other, lesser involved [individuals], is not the focus of this.\" Acosta also told OPR that he assumed Villafaña and Lourie had considered the provision and decided that it was appropriate. Finally, Sloman, who was not involved in negotiating the NPA, told OPR that in retrospect, he understood the non-prosecution provision was designed to protect Epstein's four assistants, and it \"never dawned\" on him that it was intended to shield anyone else.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This broad provision promising not to prosecute \"any potential co-conspirators\" is troubling and, as discussed more fully later in this Report, OPR did not find evidence showing that the subjects gave careful consideration to the potential scope of the provision or whether it was warranted given that the investigation had been curtailed and the USAO lacked complete information regarding possible co-conspirators. Villafaña precipitously revised a more narrow provision sought by the defense. Given its evolution from a provision sought by the defense, it appears unlikely to have been designed to protect the victims, and there is no indication that at the time, the subjects believed that was the purpose. However, the USAO had not indicated interest in prosecuting anyone other than the four named female assistants, and OPR found no record indicating that Epstein had expressed concern about the prosecutorial fate of anyone other than the four assistants and unnamed employees of a specific Epstein company. Accordingly, OPR concludes that the evidence does not show that Acosta, Lourie, or Villafaña agreed to the non-prosecution provision to protect any of Epstein's political, celebrity, or other influential associates.242",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "H. OPR's Investigation Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That Epstein Cooperated in Other Federal Investigations or Received Special Treatment on That Basis",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "One final issue OPR explored stemmed from media reports suggesting that Epstein may have received special treatment from the USAO in return for his cooperation in another federal",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "242 As previously stated, Sloman was on vacation when Villafaña included the provision in draft plea agreements and did not monitor the case or comment on the various iterations of the NPA that were circulated during his absence. Menchel left the USAO on August 3, 2007, before the parties drafted the NPA.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "168",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003370",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Lourie",
      "OPR",
      "Acosta",
      "Epstein",
      "Villafaña",
      "Sloman",
      "Menchel"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "August 3, 2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003370"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to the case of Jeffrey Epstein. It discusses the non-prosecution provision in Epstein's plea agreement and whether it was intended to protect his co-conspirators or associates. The document is well-formatted and easy to read, with clear headings and paragraphs. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}