DOJ-OGR-00023171.tif

CHAPTER TWO
PART THREE: ANALYSIS
I.
OVERVIEW
Following the Miami Herald report in November 2018, media scrutiny of and public
attention to the USAO's handling of its Epstein investigation has continued unabated. At the heart
of the public's concern is the perception that Epstein's 18-month sentence, which resulted in a 13-
month term of actual incarceration, was too lenient and inadequately punished Epstein's criminal
conduct. Although many records have been released as part of civil litigation stemming from
Epstein's conduct, the public has received only limited information regarding the decision-making
process leading to the signed NPA. As a result, questions have arisen about Acosta and his staff's
motivations for entering into the NPA. Publicly released communications between prosecutors
and defense counsel, the leniency of the sentence, and an unusual non-prosecution provision in the
NPA have led to allegations that Acosta and the USAO gave Epstein a "sweetheart deal" because
they were motivated by improper influences, such as their preexisting and personal relationships
with his attorneys, or even corrupt influences, such as the receipt of personal benefits from Epstein.
Through its investigation, OPR has sought to answer the following core questions: (1) who
was responsible for the decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA and for its
specific terms; (2) did the NPA or any of its provisions violate Department policies or other rules
or regulations; and (3) were any of the subjects motivated to resolve the federal investigation by
improper factors, such as corruption or favoritism. To the extent that available records and witness
interviews shed light on these questions, OPR shows in detail the process that led to the NPA, from
the initial complaint to the USAO through the intense and often confusing negotiation process.
After a thorough and detailed examination of thousands of contemporaneous records and extensive
interviews of subjects and witnesses, OPR is able to answer most of the significant questions
concerning the NPA's origins and development. Although some questions remain, OPR sets forth
its conclusions and the bases for them in this Part.
II. ACOSTA REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE TERMS OF THE NPA AND IS
ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT
Although Acosta did not sign the NPA, he approved it, with knowledge of its terms. He
revised drafts of the NPA and added language that he thought appropriate. Acosta told OPR that
he either was informed of, or had access to information concerning, the underlying facts of the
case against Epstein. OPR did not find any evidence suggesting that any of his subordinates misled
him about the facts or withheld information that would have influenced his decision, and Acosta
did not make such a claim to OPR. As Acosta affirmed in his OPR interview, the "three pronged
resolution, two years , registration and restitution, ultimately that was approved on my
authority.... [U]ltimately, I approved it, and so, I... accept that. I'm not
pushing away
responsibility for it."
In making its misconduct assessments, OPR considers the conduct of subjects individually.
Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña were involved in the matter to varying degrees, at
133
DOJ-OGR-00023171