DOJ-OGR-00000284.jpg

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 11 of 16

Other than his 2008 guilty plea predicated on conduct substantially overlapping the same conduct charged here, Mr. Epstein has no criminal history. Congress specifically listed these factors as considerations for the Court, and their absence therefore should weigh in favor of Mr. Epstein’s pretrial release. Mr. Epstein comes from a stable and humble family background. All of his remaining family members, his brother, niece, and nephew, reside in the United States. Through his business and the five residences he maintains in the United States, Mr. Epstein employs people, many of whom have been with him for more than a decade, and feels personally responsible for their livelihoods. Mr. Epstein is admittedly wealthy with all of his financial resources (other than his Paris residence) in the United States (including the U.S. Virgin Islands) and will provide the Court with more specific information regarding his assets in a sealed supplemental disclosure prior to the upcoming bail hearing if the Court grants leave to file such a sealed supplement. Mr. Epstein has, to this point, not provided a complete financial disclosure on advice of counsel, motivated by a desire to ensure the accuracy of the information provided to the Court. During the years since his release from incarceration in connection with his Florida guilty plea, Mr. Epstein has been a law-abiding citizen without a single allegation of criminal misconduct during that period and has focused his efforts on business and philanthropy. At the Court’s request, Mr. Epstein will provide a sealed list of philanthropic donations.

Crucially, the government has failed to proffer any evidence that Mr. Epstein has ever indicated an intent to flee from this investigation or any other criminal matter, which several courts have observed is a critical factor in evaluating whether pretrial release is appropriate. See Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d at 90 (“In this case, . . . there is no strong circumstantial evidence indicating that Mrs. Hanson intends to flee the United States”); United States v. Vortis, 785 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir.1986) (serious intent to flee is an important factor); United States v. Cole, 715 F. Supp. 677, 679 (E.D. Pa.1988) (defendant told undercover agents he would flee if arrested). In fact, Mr. Epstein has displayed long-term, consistent compliance with Court orders and other legal requirements. As a result of his 2008 guilty plea and corresponding sex-offender designation, Mr. Epstein is required to (1) register for life as a sex offender; (2) regularly verify his address with Virgin Islands, Florida, and New York authorities; (3) annually update his registry photograph; and (4) provide registration authorities with detailed itineraries for all travel (both domestic and international) in which he engages. Mr. Epstein has strictly complied with these requirements, without exception, for approximately ten years.

The Court inquired about the relationship of the New York State registration classification and the requirements of the Bail Reform Act. And while it is true that the New York Appellate Division held that Mr. Epstein was appropriately classified as a level-three sex offender, this inquiry was entirely backward-looking and based on the allegations contained in a Florida probable cause affidavit describing conduct ending in 2005 that were neither admitted-to nor within the scope of Mr. Epstein’s guilty plea. See People v. Epstein, 89 A.D. 3d 570, 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). While Mr. Epstein has made no subsequent attempt to challenge the continuing nature of his designation, his law-abiding behavior for the ensuing decade plus

11
DOJ-OGR-00000284