DOJ-OGR-00021228.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page56 of 258
SA-54
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 54 of 348

the FBI squad supervisor on May 9, 2007, to explain that charges against Epstein would not be
quickly approved, he reported to Menchel that the FBI was “not happy” about the delay, adding,
“I did not even tell them I think we should bring [Epstein] in, once we decide to charge him, and
offer a pre-indictment deal, figuring a judge might never agree to such a deal post indictment. That
would have sent them thru the roof.” Lourie explained to OPR that he thought a judge, after seeing
an indictment charging the full nature and scope of Epstein’s conduct, might not agree to a plea
involving substantially less time or to dismiss substantive charges.41

Lourie told OPR that despite Oosterbaan’s favorable opinion of the case, “[t]his was . . . a
bit of uncharted territory,” involving facts that were unlike the case law Oosterbaan had cited.
Although Lourie had some concerns about the legal issues and about the witnesses, he “probably”
did not see any impediment to going forward with the case; in fact, Lourie “was not in favor of
walking away, which is what the defense wanted [the USAO] to do.” But while Lourie “thought
we could have won and we could have prevailed through appeal,” he “didn’t think the odds were
nearly as good as you want in a criminal case, and . . . the things that we had to gain [through a
plea agreement] were much more than [in] a normal criminal case,” in which the only cost of a
loss would be that the defendant did not go to jail. Lourie told OPR that to the best of his
recollection, he thought a plea agreement would be a good result, and although the government
might have to “give up some jail time,” there were other benefits to a plea, such as the ability to
require Epstein to register as a sex offender and the availability of monetary damages for the
victims. Lourie recalled “thinking that this case should settle and we should set it up so we can
settle it” by, for example, charging Epstein by complaint and then negotiating a plea to limited
charges in a criminal information. Villafaña told OPR that she agreed with Lourie that a criminal
complaint charging an “omnibus conspiracy” containing “all of the information related to what the
case was about” would be a good way to “get things moving” toward a pre-indictment plea.

Although Lourie and Villafaña believed a pre-indictment plea agreement was a desired
resolution, there was no guarantee that Epstein would agree to plead guilty, and they continued to
work together to shape an indictment. On May 10, 2007, Lourie emailed Villafaña:

[M]arie
I believe that Epstein’s att[orneys] are scared of the victims they
don’t know. Epstein has no doubt told them that there were many.
Thus I believe the f[ir]st indictment should contain only the victims
they have nothing on at all. We can add in the other ones that have
myspace [sic] pages and prior testimony in a [superseding
indictment]. I think for the first strike we should make all their
nightmare[]s come true. Thoughts?42

41 Lourie explained to OPR that the government’s dismissal of counts in an indictment required the court’s
approval, and that, while “it’s rare,” it was possible that a judge, seeing the nature and extent of Epstein’s conduct as
set forth in an extensive indictment, might not allow substantive counts to be dismissed.

42 Lourie’s references to MySpace pages and “prior testimony” referred to the impeachment information
brought forward by defense counsel.

28
DOJ-OGR-00021228