{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "193",
    "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 193 of 348\n\nVillafaña had raised (defense counsel's attempt to insert an immigration waiver into the agreement), but Lourie did not comment on the provision promising not to prosecute co-conspirators or ask Villafaña to explain why she believed the provision did not harm the government's interests. In a subsequent email about the draft NPA, Villafaña asked Lourie for \"[a]ny other thoughts,\" but there is no indication that he provided further input. OPR found no document that suggested Villafaña and Lourie discussed the provision further, or that the other individuals who were copied on Villafaña's email referencing the provision—her immediate supervisor, the supervisor designated to succeed Lourie as manager of the West Palm Beach office, and Villafaña's co-counsel—commented on or had substantive discussions about it. Villafaña told OPR that because none of the three supervisors responded to her observation that the non-prosecution provision \"doesn't hurt us,\" Villafaña assumed that they agreed with her assessment.\n\nVillafaña told OPR that she could not recall a conversation specifically about the provision agreeing not to prosecute \"any potential co-conspirators,\" but she remembered generally that defense counsel told her Epstein wanted \"to make sure that he's the only one who takes the blame for what happened.\" Villafaña told OPR that she and her colleagues believed Epstein's conduct was his own \"dirty little secret.\" Villafaña said that press coverage at the time of Epstein's 2006 arrest did not allege that any of his famous contacts participated in Epstein's illicit activity and that none of the victims interviewed by the case agents before the NPA was signed told the investigators about sexual activity with any of Epstein's well-known contacts about whom allegations arose many years later.238 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.\"239 Accordingly, Villafaña believed that the only \"co-conspirators\" of Epstein who would benefit from the provision were the four female assistants identified by name.240 Villafaña also told OPR that the focus of the USAO's investigation was Epstein, and the office was not inclined to prosecute his four assistants if he entered a plea.241 Because Villafaña was unaware of anyone else who could or would be charged, she perceived no reason to object to a provision promising not to prosecute other, unspecified \"co-conspirators.\" Villafaña told OPR that given her understanding of the facts at that time, it did not occur to her that the reference to other \"potential co-conspirators\" might be used to protect any of Epstein's influential associates.\n\nLourie, who was transitioning to his detail at the Department's Criminal Division at the time Villafaña forwarded to him the draft NPA containing the non-prosecution provision, told OPR that he did not know how the provision developed and did not recall any discussions about it.\n\n238 Villafaña told OPR that \"none of . . . the victims that we spoke with ever talked about any other men being involved in abusing them. It was only Jeffrey Epstein.\"\n239 The FBI had interviewed one victim who implicated the female friend in Epstein's conduct, but the conduct involving the then minor did not occur in Florida.\n240 The FBI had learned that one of Epstein's female assistants had engaged in sexual activity with at least one girl in Epstein's presence; this assistant was one of the named individuals for whom the defense sought the government's agreement not to prosecute from the outset. Villafaña explained to OPR that this individual was herself believed to also have been at one time a victim.\n241 Villafaña told OPR that the USAO had decided that girls who recruited other girls would not be prosecuted.\n\n167\nDOJ-OGR-00003369",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 193 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The main body of text discussing Villafaña and Lourie's interactions regarding the non-prosecution provision.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Footnotes 238, 239, 240, and 241 providing additional context and information.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "167",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003369",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Villafaña",
      "Lourie",
      "Epstein",
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Department's Criminal Division",
      "USAO",
      "FBI",
      "OPR"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "West Palm Beach",
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "2006",
      "2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003369"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing or legal document discussing the Epstein case. It is well-formatted and contains footnotes with additional information."
}