{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "166",
    "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 166 of 348\n\n3. The NPA Did Not Violate Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens\n\nDuring the negotiations, the USAO rejected a defense-offered provision prohibiting the USAO from “request[ing], initiat[ing], or in any way encourag[ing] immigration authorities to institute immigration proceedings” against two female assistants. However, OPR considered whether the April 28, 1995 memorandum imposed any obligation on the USAO to prosecute Epstein’s two female assistants who were known to be foreign nationals—as Villafaña urged in her prosecution memorandum—and thus trigger their removal, or conversely, whether it precluded the USAO from agreeing not to prosecute them as part of a negotiated resolution. OPR found nothing in the policy that created a clear and unambiguous standard in either regard.\n\nThe Attorney General’s April 28, 1995 memorandum regarding “Deportation of Criminal Aliens” directed federal prosecutors to become involved actively and directly in the process of removing criminal aliens from the United States, and, along with USAM § 9-73.520, provided that “[a]ll deportable criminal aliens should be deported unless extraordinary circumstances exist.” However, Epstein’s two assistants were not “deportable” unless and until convicted of a crime that would have triggered their removal. But neither the policy memorandum nor the USAM imposed an obligation on the USAO to prosecute or secure a conviction against a foreign national nor did either provision preclude the USAO from declining to prosecute an alien using the same broad discretion that otherwise applies to charging decisions.\n\nThe policy guidance also requires “prompt and close coordination” with immigration officials in cases involving alien defendants and specifies that prosecutors must notify immigration authorities before engaging in plea negotiations with alien defendants. OPR learned during its investigation that an ICE agent participated in the Epstein investigation in its early stages. Moreover, because the USAO never engaged in plea negotiations with the two female assistants, who, in any event, had not been charged and were therefore not “defendants,” no further notification was required.\n\nIV. THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE INFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA TERMS FAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND BENEFITS TO EPSTEIN\n\nOPR investigated whether any of the subjects—Acosta, Soman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafaña—was influenced by corruption, bias, or other improper motive, such as Epstein’s wealth, status, or political associations, to include terms in the NPA that were favorable to Epstein, or whether such motives otherwise affected the outcome of the federal investigation. OPR considered the case-specific reasons the subjects identified as the motivation for the USAO’s July 31, 2007 “term sheet” and Acosta’s approval of the NPA in September 2007. OPR also thoroughly examined various factors forming the basis for allegations that the subjects were motivated by improper influences, including the subjects’ preexisting relationships with defense counsel; the subjects’ numerous meetings with Epstein’s team of nationally known attorneys; emails between the subjects—particularly Villafaña—and defense counsel that appeared friendly, casual, and deferential to defense counsel; and inclusion in the NPA of a broad provision declining\n\n140\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003342",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 166 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3. The NPA Did Not Violate Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "During the negotiations, the USAO rejected a defense-offered provision prohibiting the USAO from “request[ing], initiat[ing], or in any way encourag[ing] immigration authorities to institute immigration proceedings” against two female assistants. However, OPR considered whether the April 28, 1995 memorandum imposed any obligation on the USAO to prosecute Epstein’s two female assistants who were known to be foreign nationals—as Villafaña urged in her prosecution memorandum—and thus trigger their removal, or conversely, whether it precluded the USAO from agreeing not to prosecute them as part of a negotiated resolution. OPR found nothing in the policy that created a clear and unambiguous standard in either regard.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Attorney General’s April 28, 1995 memorandum regarding “Deportation of Criminal Aliens” directed federal prosecutors to become involved actively and directly in the process of removing criminal aliens from the United States, and, along with USAM § 9-73.520, provided that “[a]ll deportable criminal aliens should be deported unless extraordinary circumstances exist.” However, Epstein’s two assistants were not “deportable” unless and until convicted of a crime that would have triggered their removal. But neither the policy memorandum nor the USAM imposed an obligation on the USAO to prosecute or secure a conviction against a foreign national nor did either provision preclude the USAO from declining to prosecute an alien using the same broad discretion that otherwise applies to charging decisions.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The policy guidance also requires “prompt and close coordination” with immigration officials in cases involving alien defendants and specifies that prosecutors must notify immigration authorities before engaging in plea negotiations with alien defendants. OPR learned during its investigation that an ICE agent participated in the Epstein investigation in its early stages. Moreover, because the USAO never engaged in plea negotiations with the two female assistants, who, in any event, had not been charged and were therefore not “defendants,” no further notification was required.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "IV. THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE INFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA TERMS FAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND BENEFITS TO EPSTEIN",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "OPR investigated whether any of the subjects—Acosta, Soman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafaña—was influenced by corruption, bias, or other improper motive, such as Epstein’s wealth, status, or political associations, to include terms in the NPA that were favorable to Epstein, or whether such motives otherwise affected the outcome of the federal investigation. OPR considered the case-specific reasons the subjects identified as the motivation for the USAO’s July 31, 2007 “term sheet” and Acosta’s approval of the NPA in September 2007. OPR also thoroughly examined various factors forming the basis for allegations that the subjects were motivated by improper influences, including the subjects’ preexisting relationships with defense counsel; the subjects’ numerous meetings with Epstein’s team of nationally known attorneys; emails between the subjects—particularly Villafaña—and defense counsel that appeared friendly, casual, and deferential to defense counsel; and inclusion in the NPA of a broad provision declining",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "140",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003342",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Villafaña",
      "Acosta",
      "Soman",
      "Menchel",
      "Lourie"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "OPR",
      "ICE"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "April 28, 1995",
      "July 31, 2007",
      "September 2007",
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003342"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. It discusses the USAO's handling of the case and potential influences on their decisions. The text is printed and clear, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}