Legal Document - DOJ-OGR-00002976 | Trove Document Archive

Processing Document...

0%

Initializing...

Extraction Summary

2

People

4

Organizations

1

Locations

1

Events

1

Relationships

1

Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document

File Size: 696 KB

Summary

This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) does not immunize the defendant, Maxwell, from prosecution. The argument is based on two points: the NPA's scope is strictly limited to specific federal crimes committed between 2001 and 2007, and the mere mention of "co-conspirator" does not automatically include Maxwell within the agreement's protections.

People (2)

Name	Role	Context
Maxwell	Defendant	Mentioned as the defendant who is not immunized from prosecution by the NPA.
Epstein		Mentioned as the party to the NPA, which provided him and potentially his "co-conspirators" with limited immunity.

Organizations (4)

Name	Type	Context
Federal Bureau of Investigation	government agency	Mentioned as a party to the joint investigation covered by the NPA.
United States Attorney’s Office	government agency	Mentioned as a party to the joint investigation covered by the NPA.
USAO-SDFL	government agency	Abbreviation for the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, whose investigation and ab...
Federal Grand Jury	legal body	Mentioned in the context of an investigation from which offenses arose, which were covered by the NPA.

Timeline (1 events)

2001-2007

A joint investigation by the USAO-SDFL and the Federal Bureau of Investigation into federal crimes committed between 2001 and September 2007, which was the subject of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).

USAO-SDFL Federal Bureau of Investigation

View

Locations (1)

Location	Context
this District	Refers to the judicial district where the case is being heard and where the NPA barred prosecution for certain offenses.

Relationships (1)

Maxwell → alleged co-conspirators → Epstein

The document discusses whether Maxwell, as a potential "co-conspirator" of Epstein, is protected by the NPA he signed. It argues that the term "co-conspirator" in the agreement does not automatically grant her immunity.

Key Quotes (1)

"[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."

Source

— Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) (Quoted from the NPA to demonstrate the specific and limited scope of the immunity it provides.)

DOJ-OGR-00002976.jpg

Quote #1

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,043 characters)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 42 of 239

B. The NPA Does Not Immunize Maxwell from Prosecution

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.

1. The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007

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.

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:

[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.

NPA at 2. Thus, the NPA barred the USAO-SDFL from prosecuting Epstein for the specific

15

DOJ-OGR-00002976

View Original PDF