EFTA01718606.pdf

(199) .On or about July 22, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and I= traveled from to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (200) On or about August 18, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEINS and traveled from to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (201) On or about August 18, 2005, Defendant placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #17. (202) On or about August 19, 2005, Defendant wk/a placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #17. (203) On or about August 21, 2005, Defendant placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #17. (204) On or about September 3, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and , a/Ida traveled from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (205) On or about September 3, 2005, Defendant , ailda` placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #17. (206) On or about September 18, 2005, Defendant= placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #17. (207) On or about September 18, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and , afich traveled from 30 EFTA01718606  to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (208) On or about September 18, 2005, Defendant sent a text message to a telephone used by Jane Doe #17. (209) On or about September 29, 2005, Defendant placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #17. (210) On or about September 29, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and traveled from to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (211) On or about September 30, 2005, Defendant , a/k/a placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #17. (212) On or about October 1, 2005, Defendant left a telephone message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN stating: "[Jane Doe #14] confirmed at 11 AM and [Jane Doe #17] — 4PM". (213) On or about October 2, 2005, DefendantM placed one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #17. (214) On or about October 3, 2005, Defendant caused one or more telephone calls to a telephone used by Jane Doe #17. 31 EFTA01718607  (215) On or about October 3, 2005, Defendant left a telephone message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN stating: "[Jane Doe #17) will be 12 / hour late". (216) In or around the first week of October of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN engaged in sexual intercourse with Jane Doe #17, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. (217) In or around the first week of October of 2005, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN made a payment of $350.00 to Jane Doe #17, who was then a seventeen-year-old girl. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and 2. 32 EFTA01718608  COUNT 2 (Conspiracy to Travel: 18 U.S.C. § 2423(e)) 25. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as fully set for the herein. 26. From at least as early as 2001 through in or around October 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, n ur o and did knowingly and willfully conspire with each other and with others known and unknown to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with another person, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(e). COUNT 3 (Facilitation of Unlawful Travel of Another: 18 U.S.C. § 2423(d)) 27. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 28. From at least as early as in or about 2001 through in or around October 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant, did, for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, arrange and facilitate the travel of a person, that is Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, knowing that such person was traveling in 33 EFTA01718609 interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(d). COUNT 4 (Sex Trafficking: 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(2)) 29. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 30. From at least as early as in or about 2001 through in or about October 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, and did knowingly benefit, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(3), which had engaged in an act described in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), that is, the recruiting, enticing, providing, and obtaining by any means a person, in or affecting interstate commerce, knowing that the person or persons had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(2), 1591(b)(2), and 2. COUNT 5 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 31. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 34 EFTA01718610  32. From in or around the spring of 2003 through on or about October 2, 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #4, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution and in a sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, that is violations of Florida Statutes Sections 800.04(5)(a), 800.04(6)(a), and 800.04(7)(a); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 6 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 33. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 34. In or around March 2004, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #5, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 7 35 EFTA01718611  (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 35. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 36. From in or around April 2004 through on or around June 29, 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and , a/k/a did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #6, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 8 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 37. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 38. In or around July 2004, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand July, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #7, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. 36 EFTA01718612  COUNT 9 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 39. Paragraphs I through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 40. From in or around July 2004 through on or around December 29, 2004, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #8, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution and in a sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, that is a violation of Florida Statutes Section 794.05; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 10 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 41. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 42. From in or around July 2004 through on or about January 31, 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 37 EFTA01718613 did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #9, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 11 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 43. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 44. From in or around the middle of 2004 through on or about April 22, 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #10, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 12 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 38 EFTA01718614  45. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 46. From in or around August 2004 through on or about May 27, 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and a did use a facility or means o interstate commerce, that is, e to ep one, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #11, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 13 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 47. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 48. From in or around November 2004 through in or around March 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and a' did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #13, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution and in a sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal 39 EFTA01718615 . offense, that is a violation of Florida Statutes Section 794.05; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 14 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 49. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 50. From in or around December 2004 through on or about June 5, 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and a/k/a ' did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #14, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 15 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 51. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 52. In or around December 2004, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and 40 EFTA01718616 did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #15, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 16 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 53. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 54. In or around February 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #I6, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution and in a sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, that is violations of Florida Statutes Sections 800.04(5)(a), 800.04(6)(a), and 800.04(7)(a); in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 17 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 55. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 56. From in or around February 2005 through in or around the first week of October 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, 41 EFTA01718617  JEFFREY EPSTEIN, did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce or entice Jane Doe #17, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution and in a sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, that is a violation of Florida Statutes Section 794.05; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 18 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 57. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 58. From in or around February 2005 through in or around April 2005, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and a/k/a did use a facility or means of interstate commerce, that is, the telephone, to knowingly persuade, induce and entice Jane Doe #18, who was a person who had not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNTS 19 THROUGH 22 (Travel to Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct: 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)) 42 EFTA01718618  59. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 60. On or about the dates enumerated as to each count listed below, from a place outside the Southern District of Florida to a place inside :he Southern District of Florida, the Defendant(s) listed below traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with a person under 18 years of age, that is, the person(s) listed in each count below: COUNT DATE(S) MINOR(S)INVOLVED DEFENDANT(S) 19 7/16/2004 Jane Doe 47 JEFFREY EPSTEIN Jane Doe 48 Jane Doe 49 20 3/31/2005 Jane Doe #6 JEFFREY EPSTEIN Jane Doe #13 Jane Doe #14 Jane Doe #16 Jane Doe #17 21 9/18/2005 Jane Doe #17 JEFFREY EPSTEIN a/a 22 9/29/05 Jane Doe #17 JEFFREY EPSTEIN a/k/ All in violation of Tit e 18, United States Code, Sections 2423(b) and 2. COUNTS 23 THROUGH 32 (Sex Trafficking: 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1)) 43 EFTA01718619  61. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 62. On or about the dates enumerated as to each count listed below, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the Defendants listed below did knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruit, entice, provide, and obtain by any means a person, that is, the person in each count listed below, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1): COUNT DATE(S) MINOR(S) DEFENDANT(S) INVOLVED 23 2001 - 2004 Jane Doe #2 JEFFREY EPSTEIN 24 April 2004 Jane Doe #6 JEFFREY EPSTEIN through June 29, 2005 11111 25 . July 2004 Jane Doe #7 JEFFREY EPSTEIN 26 July 2004 Jane Doe #8 JEFFREY EPSTEL\ through December 29, 2004 I wk. 27 July 2004 Jane Doe #9 • JEFFREY EPSTEIN through January 31, 2005 44 EFTA01718620  COUNT DATE(S) MINOR(S) DEFENDANT(S) INVOLVED 28 Mid-2004 Jane Doe #10 JEFFREY EPSTEIN through April 22, 2005 29 August 2004 Jane Doe #11 JEFFREY EPSTEIN through May 27, 2005 aAJMIL 30 November 2004 Jane Doe #13 JEFFREY EPSTEIN through March 2005 aileilL l 31 December 2004 Jane Doe #14 JEFFREY EPSTEIN through June 5, 2005 aike 32 February 2005 Jane Doe #17 JEFFREY EPSTEIN through first week of October 2005 a All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2. FORFEITURE 1 Upon conviction of the violation alleged in Count 1 of this indictment, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, aAcia and hall forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the violation. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461; Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C); and Title 21, United States Code, Section 853. 45 EFTA01718621  If the property described above as being subject to forfeiture, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, a/k/a and (1) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; (2) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with a third person; (3) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; (4) has been substantially diminished in value; or (5) has been commingled with other property which cannot be subdivided without difficulty; it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), to seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendants up to the value of the above forfeitable property. All pursuant to Tide 28 United States Code, Section 2461; Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C); and Title 21 United States Code, Section 853. FORFEITURE 2 Upon conviction of any of the violations alleged in Counts 2, 3, 5-50, 59, 60, of this indictment, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, anda shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, constituting or traceable to gross profits or other proceeds obtained from such offense; and any property, real or personal, used or intended to be used to 46 EFTA01718622 commit or to promote the commission of such offense, including but not limited to the following: a. A parcel of land located at a, Palm Beach, Florida 33480, including all buildings, improvements, fixtures, attachments, and easements found therein or thereon, and more particularly described as: Being all of as recorded in in the records of Palm Beach County, Florida and , as recorded m Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, being bounded on the West by the West side of an existing concrete seawall and the northerly extension thereof as shown on the Adair & Brady, Inc., drawing and bounded on the East by the shoreline as s own on e p -and bounded on the North and South by the Westerly extensions of the North and South lines respectively of containing 0.07 acres, more or less. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2253. If any of the forfeitable property described in the forfeiture section of this indictment, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, anda and =I M• (a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; ' (b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third person; (c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; (d) has been substantially diminished in value; or 47 EFTA01718623  (e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2253(o), to seek forfeiture of any other property of said defendant up to the value of the above forfeitable property. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2253. FORFEITURE 3 Upon conviction of any of the violations alleged in Counts 4, 51-58, of this indictment, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, a/k/a " and shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, that was used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of such violation; and any property, real or personal, constituting or derived from any proceeds that such person obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of such violation, including but not limited to the following: a. A parcel of land located at , Palm Beach, Florida 33480, including all buildings, improvements, fixtures, attachments, and easements found therein or thereon, and more particularly described as: Being all of as recorded in in the records o Palm Beach County, Florida and BEING thatportion 1 in West of , as reco e m e 48 EFTA01718624  Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, being bounded on the West by the West side of an existing concrete seawall and the northerly extension thereof as shown on the Adair & Brady, Inc., drawing and bounded on the East by the shoreline as s own on epa o and bounded on the North and South the Westerly extensions o North and South lines respectively of containing 0.07 acres, more or less. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1594(b). A TRUE BILL. FOREPERSON R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 49 EFTA01718625  U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida acsrmi December 13, 2007 . DELIVERY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP ew York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: lam writing not to respond to your asserted "policy concerns" regarding Mr. Epstein's Non- Prosecution Agreement, which will be addressed by the United States Attorney, but the time has come for me to respond to the ever-increasing attacks on my role in the investigation and negotiations. It is an understatement to say that I am surprised by your allegations regarding my role because I thought that we had worked very well together in resolving this dispute. I also am surprised because I feel that I bent over backwards to keep in mind the effect that the agreement would have on Mr. Epstein and to make sure that you (and he) understood the repercussions of the agreement. For example, I brought to your attention that one potential plea could result in no gain time for your client; I corrected one of your calculations of the Sentencing Guidelines that would have resulted in Mr. Epstein spending far more time in prison than you projected; I contacted the Bureau of Prisons to see whether Mr. Epstein would be eligible for the prison camp that you desired; and I told you my suspicions about the source of the press "leak" and suggested ways to avoid the press. Importantly, I continued to work with you in a professional manner even after I learned that you had been proceeding in bad faith for several weeks — thinking that I had incorrectly concluded that solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution was a registrable offense and that you would "fool" our Office into letting Mr. Epstein plead to a non-registrable offense. Even now, when it is clear that neither you nor your client ever intended to abide by the terms of the agreement that he signed, I have never alleged misconduct on your part. The first allegation that raise is that I "assiduously" hid from you the fact that ea friend of my and that I have a "longstanding relationship" with Mr. EFTA01718626 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 2 OF 5 I informed you that I selected Mr. because he was a friend and classmate of two people whom I respected, and that I had never met or spoken with Mr. rior to contacting him about this case. All of those facts are true. I still have never' met Mr. and, at the time that he and I spoke about this case, he did not know about my relationship wi is friend. You sir gest that I should have ex licitly informed you that one of the referrals came from my ther than sim I a which is the term I used, but it is not my nature to iscuss my opposing counsel. Your attacks on me and on the victims establish why wanted to find someone whom I could trust with safeguarding the victims' best interests in the face of intense pressure from an unlimited number of highly skilled and well paid attorneys. Mr. was that person. One of your letters suggests a business relationship between Mr. d This is patentl untrue and neither my nor I would have recent any financial bene t from Mr. appointment. Furthermore, after Mr. = learned more about Mr. Epstein's actions (as escn below), he expressed a willingness to handle the case pro bono, with no financial benefit even to himself. Furthermore, you were given several other options to choose from, including the Podhurst firm, which was later selected by . You rejected those other options. You also allege that I improperly disclosed information about the case to Mr. ME I provided Mr. with a bare bones summary ofthe agreement'sterms related to his appointment to help him deer the case was something he and his firm would be willing to undertake. I did not provide Mr. with facts related to the investigation because they were confidential and instead recommen!Rat he "Google" Mr. Epstein's name for background information. When ked for additional information to assist his firm in addressing conflicts issues, I forM a:se questions to you, and you raised objections for the first time. I did not share any further information about Mr. Epstein or the case. Since Mr. had been told that you concurred in his selection, out of professional courtesy, I inform Mr. f the Office's decision to use a Special Master to make the selection and told him that the ice ad made contact with •. We have had no further contact since then and I have never had contact with understand from you that Mr. = contacted . You criticize his ecision to do so, yet you feel that you and your co-counsel were emit to contact to try to "lobby" him to select someone to your liking, despite the fact that the Non-Prosecution Agreement vested the Office with the exclusive right to select the attorney representative. Another reason for my surprise about your allegations regarding misconduct related to the Section 2255 litigation is your earlier desire to have me perform the role of"facilitator" to convince the victims that the lawyer representative was selected by the Office to represent their interests alone and that the out-of-court settlement of their claims was in their best interests. You now state that doing the same things that you had asked me to do earlier is improper meddling in civil litigation. Much of your letter reiterates the challenges to Detective investigation that have EFTA01718627 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 3 OF 5 already been submitted to the Office on several occasions and you suggest that I have kept that information from those who reviewed the proposed indictment package. Contrary to your suggestion, those submissions were attached to and incorporated in the proposed indictment package, so your suggestion that I tried to hide something from the reviewers is false. I also take issue with the duplicity of stating that we must accept as true those parts of the reports and witness statements that you like and we must accept as false those parts that you o not like. You and your co-counsel also impressed upon me from the beginning the need to undertake an independent investigation. It seems inappropriate now to complain because our independent investigation uncovered facts that are unfavorable to your client. You complain that I "forced" your client and the State Attorney's Office to proceed on charges that they do not believe in, yet you do not want our Office to inform the State Attorney's Office of facts that support the additional charge nor do you want any of the victims of that charge to contact Ms. Belohlavek or the Court. Ms. Belohlavek's opinion may change if she knows the full scope of your client's actions. You and I spent several weeks trying to identify and put together a plea to federal charges that your client was willing to accept. Yet your letter now accuses me of "manufacturing" charges of obstruction ofjustice, making obscene phone calls, and violating child privacy laws. When Mr. Lourie told you that those charges would "embarrass the Office," he meant that the Office was unwilling to bend the facts to satisfy Mr. Epstein's desired prison sentence — a statement with which I agree. I hope that you understand how your accusations that I imposed "ultimatums" and "forced" you and your client to agree to unconscionable contract terms cannot square with the true facts of this case. As explained in letters from Messrs. Acosta and Sloman, the indictment was postponed for more than five months to allow you and Mr. Epstein's other attorneys to make presentations to the Office to convince the Office not to prosecute. Those presentations were unsuccessful. As you mention in your letter, I -a simple line AUSA — handled the primary negotiations for the Office, and conducted those negotiations with you, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Lewis, and a host of other highly skilled and experienced practitioners. As you put it, your group has a "combined 250 years experience" to my fourteen. The agreement itself was signed by Mr. Epstein, Ms. Sanchez, and Mr. Lefcourt, whose experience speaks for itself. You and I spent hours negotiating the terms, including when to use "a" versus "the" and other minutiae. When you and I could not reach agreement, you repeatedly went over my head, involving Messrs. Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta in the negotiations at various times. In any and all plea negotiations the defendant understands that his options are to plead or to continue with the investigation and proceed to trial. Those were the same options that were proposed to Mr. Epstein, and they are not "persecution or intimidation tactics." Mr. Epstein chose to sign the agreement with the advice of a multitude of extremely noteworthy counsel. You also make much of the fact that the names of the victims were not released to Mr. Epstein prior to signing the Agreement. You never asked for such a term. During an earlier meeting, where Mr. Black was present, he raised the concern that you now voice. Mr. Black and I did not have a chance to discuss the issue, but I had already conceived of a way to resolve that EFTA01718628 JAY P. LEFKOvitn, ESQ. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 4 or 5 issue if it were raised during negotiations. As I stated, it was not, leading me to believe that it was not a matter of concern to the defense. Since the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the agents and I have vetted the list of victims more than once. In one instance, we decided to remove a name because, although the minor victim was touched inappropriately by Mr. Epstein, we decided that the link to a payment was insufficient to call it "prostitution." I have always remained open to a challenge to the list, so your suggestion that Mr. Epstein was forced to write a blank check is simply unfounded. Your last set of allegations relates to the investigation of the matter. For instance, you claim that some of the victims were informed of their right to collect damages prior to a thorough investigation of their allegations against Mr. Epstein. This also is false. None of the victims was informed of the right to sue under Section 2255 prior to the investigation of the claims. Three victims were notified shortly after the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement of the general terms of that Agreement. You raised objections to any victim notification, and no further notifications were done. Throughout this process you have seen that I have prepared this case as though it would proceed to trial. Notifying the witnesses of the possibility of damages claims prior to concluding the matter by plea or trial would only undermine my case. If my reassurances are insufficient, the fact that not a single victim has threatened to sue Mr. Epstein should assure you of the integrity of the investigation.' 'There are numerous other unfounded allegations in your letter about document demands, the money laundering investigation, contacting potential witnesses, speaking with the press, and the like. For the most part, these allegations have been raised and disproven earlier and need not be readdressed. However, with respect to the subpoena served upon the private investigator, contrary to your assertion, and as your co-counsel has already been told, I did consult with the Justice Department prior to issuing the subpoena and I was told that because I was not subpoenaing an attorney's office or an office physically located within an attorney's office, and because the business did private investigation work for individuals (rather than working exclusively for Mr. Black), I could issue a grand jury subpoena in the normal course, which is what I did. I also did not "threaten" the State Attorney's Office with a grand jury subpoena, as the correspondence with their grand jury coordinator makes perfectly clear. With regard to your allegation of my filing the Palm Beach Police Department's probable cause affidavit "with the court knowing that the public could access it," I do not know to what you are referring. All documents related to the grand jury investigation have been filed under seal, and the Palm Beach Police Department's probable cause affidavit has never been filed with the Court. If, in fact, you are referring to the Ex Pane Declaration on that was filed in response to the motion to quash the grand jury subpoena, it was filed both under seal and ex pane, so no one should have access to it except the Court and myself. Those documents are still in the Court file only because you have violated one of the terms of the Agreement by failing to "withdraw [Epstein's] pending motion to intervene and to quash certain grand jury subpoenas." EFTA01718629 • JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 5 OF 5 With respect to Ms.= I contacted her attorney — who was paid for by Mr. Epstein and was directed by counsel for Mr. Epstein to demand immunity — and asked only whether he still represented Ms. Ill and if he wanted me to send the victim notification letter to hint. He asked what the letter wou say and I told him that the letter would be forthcoming in about a week and that I could not provide him with the terms. With respect to Ms. status as a victim, you again want us to accept as true onIS'acts that are beneficial to your client and to reject as false anything detrimental to him. Ms. made a number of statements that are contradicted by documentary evidence and a review of her recorded statement shows her lack of credibility with respect to a number of statements. Based upon all of the evidence collected Ms. is classified as a victim as defined by statute. Of course, that does not mean that Ms. considers herself a victim or that she would seek damages from Mr. Epstein. I believe that a num r of the identified victims will not seek damages, but that does not negate their legal status as victims. I hope that you now understand that your accusations against myself and the agents are unfounded. In the future, I recommend that you address your accusations to me so that I can correct any misunderstandings before you make false allegations to others in the Department. I hope that we can move forward with a professional resolution of this matter, whether that be by your client's adherence to the contract that he signed, or by virtue of a trial. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Assistant United States Attorney cc: R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney First Assistant U.S. Attorney You also accuse me of "broaden[ing] the scope of the investigation without any foundation for doing so by adding charges of money laundering and violations of a money transmitting business to the investigation."