DOJ-OGR-00002868.jpg
632 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal court filing (comparison of indictments)
File Size:
632 KB
Summary
This document outlines the differences between the S1 and S2 Indictments in a criminal case, specifically noting the extension of the conspiracy timeline to 2004 and the addition of Minor Victim-4 in Counts One and Three. It states that Counts Two and Four remain unchanged, while Count Five introduces a new charge for sex trafficking conspiracy involving Minor Victim-4.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Minor Victim-4 | ||
| defendant |
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| DOJ |
Timeline (3 events)
conspiracy to entice minors to travel
conspiracy to transport minors
sex trafficking conspiracy
Relationships (3)
→
→
→
→
→
→
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,797 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 188 Filed 03/29/21 Page 2 of 5
Page 2
Page 2
I. Comparison of the S1 Indictment and the S2 Indictment
Count One of the S2 Indictment charges the defendant with participating in a conspiracy
to entice minors to travel, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, which is the same statutory violation as
Count One of the S1 Indictment. Whereas Count One of the S1 Indictment alleged that this
conspiracy lasted through in or about 1997, Count One of the S2 Indictment alleges that the
conspiracy continued through in or about 2004 and specifically identifies a fourth victim, Minor
Victim-4, who was a victim of this conspiracy between approximately 2001 and 2004.
to entice minors to travel, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, which is the same statutory violation as
Count One of the S1 Indictment. Whereas Count One of the S1 Indictment alleged that this
conspiracy lasted through in or about 1997, Count One of the S2 Indictment alleges that the
conspiracy continued through in or about 2004 and specifically identifies a fourth victim, Minor
Victim-4, who was a victim of this conspiracy between approximately 2001 and 2004.
Count Two of the S2 Indictment remains identical to Count Two of the S1 Indictment and
is unchanged.
is unchanged.
Count Three of the S2 Indictment charges the defendant with participating in a conspiracy
to transport minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, which is the same statutory violation as Count
Three of the S1 Indictment. Whereas Count Three of the S1 Indictment alleged that this conspiracy
lasted through in or about 1997, Count Three of the S2 Indictment alleges that the conspiracy
continued through in or about 2004 and specifically identifies a fourth victim, Minor Victim-4,
who was a victim of this conspiracy between approximately 2001 and 2004.
to transport minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, which is the same statutory violation as Count
Three of the S1 Indictment. Whereas Count Three of the S1 Indictment alleged that this conspiracy
lasted through in or about 1997, Count Three of the S2 Indictment alleges that the conspiracy
continued through in or about 2004 and specifically identifies a fourth victim, Minor Victim-4,
who was a victim of this conspiracy between approximately 2001 and 2004.
Count Four of the S2 Indictment remains identical to Count Four of the S1 Indictment and
is unchanged.
is unchanged.
Count Five of the S2 Indictment adds a new charge against the defendant. In particular,
Count Five alleges that the defendant participated in a sex trafficking conspiracy between
approximately 2001 and 2004, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The S2 Indictment specifically
identifies Minor Victim-4 as a victim of this conspiracy.
Count Five alleges that the defendant participated in a sex trafficking conspiracy between
approximately 2001 and 2004, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The S2 Indictment specifically
identifies Minor Victim-4 as a victim of this conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00002868
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document