DOJ-OGR-00021194.jpg
800 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
800 KB
Summary
This document is a table of contents from a legal report, likely by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), concerning the federal investigation of Epstein. The report's findings, as outlined here, conclude that U.S. Attorney Acosta and other subjects did not violate any professional standards or policies when they entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein. The document also indicates the report found no evidence that the subjects were improperly influenced by corruption or by Epstein's status and wealth.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Acosta | U.S. Attorney (implied) |
Mentioned multiple times regarding his decision to decline federal prosecution of Epstein, his use of a Non-Prosecuti...
|
| Epstein | Subject of investigation |
The individual at the center of the federal investigation and the recipient of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) di...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| OPR | government agency |
Stands for Office of Professional Responsibility (implied). It is the entity that conducted the investigation and fou...
|
| USAO | government agency |
Stands for U.S. Attorney's Office. Mentioned in relation to its agreement not to prosecute unidentified 'Potential Co...
|
| Department | government agency |
Refers to the Department of Justice (implied). Mentioned in the context of its regulations and policies which were al...
|
Timeline (3 events)
Key Quotes (3)
"OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR STANDARD, OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN NEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA"Source
— OPR (Office of Professional Responsibility)
(This is the main finding of Section III of the report, serving as a heading.)
DOJ-OGR-00021194.jpg
Quote #1
"THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE INFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA TERMS FAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND BENEFITS TO EPSTEIN"Source
— OPR (Office of Professional Responsibility)
(This is the main finding of Section IV of the report, serving as a heading.)
DOJ-OGR-00021194.jpg
Quote #2
"Acosta’s Decision to Decline to Prosecute Epstein Federally Does Not Constitute Professional Misconduct"Source
— OPR (Office of Professional Responsibility)
(A sub-heading and specific finding within the report's table of contents.)
DOJ-OGR-00021194.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,230 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page22 of 258
SA-20
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 20 of 348
SA-20
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 20 of 348
III. OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND
UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR
STANDARD, OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN
NEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA ............................ 134
UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR
STANDARD, OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN
NEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA ............................ 134
A. U.S. Attorneys Have Broad Discretion to Resolve Investigations or
Cases as They Deem Appropriate, and Acosta’s Decision to Decline
to Prosecute Epstein Federally Does Not Constitute Professional
Misconduct ......................................................................................................... 135
Cases as They Deem Appropriate, and Acosta’s Decision to Decline
to Prosecute Epstein Federally Does Not Constitute Professional
Misconduct ......................................................................................................... 135
B. No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Precluded Acosta’s Use of a
Non-Prosecution Agreement to Resolve the Federal Investigation
of Epstein ......................................................................................................... 136
Non-Prosecution Agreement to Resolve the Federal Investigation
of Epstein ......................................................................................................... 136
C. The NPA’s Individual Provisions Did Not Violate Any Clear and
Unambiguous Standards ................................................................................. 137
Unambiguous Standards ................................................................................. 137
1. Acosta Had Authority to Approve an Agreement That Required
Epstein to Plead to Offenses Resulting in an 18-Month Term of
Incarceration ........................................................................................ 137
Epstein to Plead to Offenses Resulting in an 18-Month Term of
Incarceration ........................................................................................ 137
2. The USAO’s Agreement Not to Prosecute Unidentified “Potential
Co-Conspirators” Did Not Violate a Clear and Unambiguous
Department Policy ............................................................................... 139
Co-Conspirators” Did Not Violate a Clear and Unambiguous
Department Policy ............................................................................... 139
3. The NPA Did Not Violate Department Policy Relating to
Deportation of Criminal Aliens .......................................................... 140
Deportation of Criminal Aliens .......................................................... 140
IV. THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE
INFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA
TERMS FAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND
BENEFITS TO EPSTEIN ............................................................................................ 140
INFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA
TERMS FAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND
BENEFITS TO EPSTEIN ............................................................................................ 140
A. OPR Found No Evidence of Criminal Corruption, Such as Bribery, Gratuity,
or Illegal Political or Personal Consideration ................................................... 141
or Illegal Political or Personal Consideration ................................................... 141
B. Contemporaneous Written Records and Witness and Subject Interviews
Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the Subjects Were
Improperly Influenced by Epstein’s Status, Wealth, or Associations ............ 142
Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the Subjects Were
Improperly Influenced by Epstein’s Status, Wealth, or Associations ............ 142
1. The Contemporaneous Records Did Not Reveal Evidence
Establishing That the NPA Resulted from Improper Factors ............ 142
Establishing That the NPA Resulted from Improper Factors ............ 142
2. The Subjects Asserted That They Were Motivated by
Reasonable Strategic and Policy Considerations, Not
Improper Influences .......................................................................... 143
Reasonable Strategic and Policy Considerations, Not
Improper Influences .......................................................................... 143
3. Subject and Witness Interviews and Contemporaneous Records
Identified Case-Specific Considerations Relating to Evidence,
Legal Theories, Litigation Risk, and a Trial’s Potential Impact
on Victims ............................................................................................ 144
Identified Case-Specific Considerations Relating to Evidence,
Legal Theories, Litigation Risk, and a Trial’s Potential Impact
on Victims ............................................................................................ 144
C. Other Significant Factors Are Inconsistent with a Conclusion That
the Subjects’ Actions Were Motivated by Improper Influences ........................ 149
the Subjects’ Actions Were Motivated by Improper Influences ........................ 149
xviii
DOJ-OGR-00021194
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document