{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "42",
    "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 42 of 239\n\nB. The NPA Does Not Immunize Maxwell from Prosecution\n\nEven if the NPA bound this District—which it does not—the NPA provides no basis for dismissing the Indictment. The NPA does not protect the defendant for at least two reasons. First, the text of the NPA specifically limits the scope of the NPA to certain federal crimes committed between 2001 and 2007, and thus the NPA does not apply to the distinct offenses and time periods charged in the Indictment. Second, the NPA does not protect the defendant at all, because the mere use of the word “co-conspirator” does not establish that the defendant was among the class of persons contemplated by the agreement, much less that the defendant has standing to enforce it.\n\n1. The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007\n\nContrary to the defendant’s assertions, the NPA did not provide carte blanche immunity to Epstein or his “co-conspirators.” In fact, the NPA contains detailed provisions that limit the scope of the crimes immunized in the agreement.\n\nThe NPA begins by outlining the scope of the USAO-SDFL investigation, delineating the timeframe of the offense conduct under investigation (“from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007”), and listing each and every statutory offense under investigation. NPA at 1. The NPA does this for a reason, because these terms are later used in the agreement to set the boundaries of immunity. In particular, the agreement provides:\n\n[N]o prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed.\n\nNPA at 2. Thus, the NPA barred the USAO-SDFL from prosecuting Epstein for the specific\n\n15\nDOJ-OGR-00002976",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 42 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. The NPA Does Not Immunize Maxwell from Prosecution",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Even if the NPA bound this District—which it does not—the NPA provides no basis for dismissing the Indictment. The NPA does not protect the defendant for at least two reasons. First, the text of the NPA specifically limits the scope of the NPA to certain federal crimes committed between 2001 and 2007, and thus the NPA does not apply to the distinct offenses and time periods charged in the Indictment. Second, the NPA does not protect the defendant at all, because the mere use of the word “co-conspirator” does not establish that the defendant was among the class of persons contemplated by the agreement, much less that the defendant has standing to enforce it.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Contrary to the defendant’s assertions, the NPA did not provide carte blanche immunity to Epstein or his “co-conspirators.” In fact, the NPA contains detailed provisions that limit the scope of the crimes immunized in the agreement.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The NPA begins by outlining the scope of the USAO-SDFL investigation, delineating the timeframe of the offense conduct under investigation (“from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007”), and listing each and every statutory offense under investigation. NPA at 1. The NPA does this for a reason, because these terms are later used in the agreement to set the boundaries of immunity. In particular, the agreement provides:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[N]o prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "NPA at 2. Thus, the NPA barred the USAO-SDFL from prosecuting Epstein for the specific",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "15",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002976",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Federal Bureau of Investigation",
      "United States Attorney's Office"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "District"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "2001",
      "2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002976"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Maxwell, discussing the implications of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) on the current indictment."
}