DOJ-OGR-00003282.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 106 of 348

precluding the government from requesting, initiating, or recommending immigration proceedings
against the two assistants who were foreign nationals.

At this point, Lefkowitz again sought to speak to Acosta, who replied by email: “I am
happy to talk. My caveat is that in the middle of negotiations, u try to avoid[] undermining my
staff by allowing ‘interlocutor[]y’ appeals so to speak so I’d want [M]arie on the call[.] I’ll have
her set something up.”

Villafaña sent to Lefkowitz her own revised NPA, telling him it was her “attempt at
combining our thoughts,” but it had not “been approved by the office yet.” She inserted solicitation
of minors to engage in prostitution, a registrable offense, as the charge to which Epstein would
plead guilty; proposed a joint recommendation for a 30-month sentence, divided into 18 months
in the county jail and 12 months of community control; and amended the § 2255 provision.123
Villafaña’s revision retained the provision suspending the investigation and holding all legal
process in abeyance, and she incorporated the non-prosecution provision while slightly altering it
to apply to “any potential co-conspirator of Epstein, including” the four named assistants, and
deleting mention of the corporate entity employees. Finally, Villafaña deleted mention of
immigration proceedings, but advised in her transmittal email that “we have not and don’t plan to
ask immigration” proceedings to be initiated.124

Later that day, Villafaña alerted Lourie (who had arrived in Florida from Washington, D.C.
early that afternoon) and the new West Palm Beach manager (copying her first-line supervisor and
co-counsel) that she had included language that defense counsel had requested “regarding
promises not to prosecute other people,” and commented, “I don’t think it hurts us.” There is no
documentation that Lourie, the West Palm Beach manager, or anyone else expressed disagreement
with Villafaña’s assessment. Rather, within a few minutes, Villafaña re-sent her email, adding
that defense counsel was persisting in including an immigration waiver in the agreement, to which
Lourie responded, “No way. We don’t put that sort of thing in a plea agreement.” Villafaña replied
to Lourie, indicating she would pass that along to defense counsel and adding, “Any other
thoughts?” When Lourie gave no further response, Villafaña informed defense counsel that Lourie
had rejected the proposed immigration language.

OPR questioned the subjects about the USAO’s agreement not to prosecute “any potential
co-conspirators.” Lourie did not recall why the USAO agreed to it, but he speculated that he left
that provision in the NPA because he believed at the time that it benefited the government in some
way. In particular, Lourie conjectured that the promise not to prosecute “any potential
co-conspirators” protected victims who had recruited others and thus potentially were
co-conspirators in Epstein’s scheme. Lourie also told OPR, “I bet the answer was that we weren’t
going to charge” Epstein’s accomplices, because Acosta “didn’t really want to charge Epstein” in

123 Villafaña noted that she had consulted with a USAO employee who was a “former corporate counsel from a
hospital” about the § 2255 language, and thought that the revised language “addresses the concern about having an
unlimited number of claimed victims, without me trying to bind girls who I do not represent.”

124 Villafaña gave OPR an explanation similar to that given by the case agents—that an ICE Special Agent had
been involved in the early stages of the federal investigation of Epstein, and Villafaña believed the agent knew two of
Epstein’s female assistants were foreign nationals and would have acted appropriately on that information. Villafaña
also said that the USAO generally did not get involved in immigration issues.

80

DOJ-OGR-00003282