DOJ-OGR-00021270.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page98 of 258
SA-96
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 96 of 348

evidence of a violation of the agreement. Epstein and his counsel
agree that the computers that are currently under [legal process] will
be safeguarded in their current condition by Epstein’s counsel or
their agents until the terms and conditions of the Agreement are
fulfilled.

Later that day, Villafaña sent Lefkowitz a lengthy email to convey two options Lourie had
suggested: “the original proposal” for a state plea but with an agreement for an 18-month sentence,
or pleas to state charges and two federal obstruction-of-justice charges. Villafaña also told
Lefkowitz she was willing to ask Acosta again to approve a federal plea to a five-year conspiracy
with a Rule 11(c) binding recommendation for a 20-month sentence. Villafaña explained:

As to timing, it is my understanding that Mr. Epstein needs to be
sentenced in the state after he is sentenced in the federal case, but
not that he needs to plead guilty and be sentenced after serving his
federal time. Andy recommended that some of the timing issues be
addressed only in the state agreement, so that it isn’t obvious to the
judge that we are trying to create federal jurisdiction for prison
purposes.

With regard to prosecution of individuals other than Epstein, Villafaña suggested standard
federal plea agreement language regarding the resolution of all criminal liability, “and I will
mention ‘co-conspirators,’ but I would prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes
and all of the other persons that we could charge.” Villafaña told OPR that she was willing to
include a non-prosecution provision for Epstein’s co-conspirators, who at the time she understood
to be the four women named in the proposed agreement, because the USAO was not interested in
prosecuting those individuals if Epstein entered a plea. Villafaña told OPR, “[W]e considered
Epstein to be the top of the food chain, and we wouldn’t have been interested in prosecuting anyone
else.” She did not consider the possibility that Epstein might be trying to protect other, unnamed
individuals, and no one, including the FBI case agents, raised that concern. Villafaña also told
OPR that her reference to “all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge”
related to her concern that if the plea agreement contained information about uncharged conduct,
the court might ask for more information about that conduct and inquire why it had not been
charged, and if the government provided such information, Epstein’s attorneys might claim the
agreement was breached. 113

With regard to immigration, Villafaña told OPR that the USAO generally did not take any
position in plea agreements on immigration issues, and that in this case, there was no evidence that
either of the two assistants who were foreign nationals had committed fraud in connection with
their immigration paperwork, “and I think that they were both in status. So there wasn’t any reason

113 OPR understood Villafaña’s concern to be that if the government were required to respond to a court’s inquiry
into additional facts, Epstein would object that the government was trying to cast him in a negative light in order to
influence the court to impose a sentence greater than the agreed-upon term.

70

DOJ-OGR-00021270