Relationship Details

This document is page 4 of a legal opinion (likely from an appellate court) affirming the conviction and sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court holds that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida does not prevent the Southern District of New York from prosecuting Maxwell, and confirms that the statute of limitations was not violated. The document also notes Maxwell was fined a total of $750,000 and denied a new trial regarding juror conduct.

This page from a 2023 court filing analyzes the text of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It details that the FBI investigated Epstein for offenses committed between 2001 and 2007, and that the NPA was intended to 'globally' resolve his liability. The text explains that federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida was deferred in favor of state prosecution by Florida, provided Epstein abided by the terms.

This document is the final page of an appellate court ruling (Case 22-1426) dated December 2, 2024. The court affirms the June 29, 2022, conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell, rejecting five specific points of appeal, including arguments regarding the statute of limitations, jury instructions, sentencing reasonableness, and the claim that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida barred her prosecution in New York.

This document is page 8 of a legal brief filed on November 1, 2024, discussing the legal interpretation of Jeffrey Epstein's September 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It outlines the background of the NPA, noting that in exchange for a guilty plea to state charges and an 18-month sentence, the USAO-SDFL agreed not to prosecute Epstein or his potential co-conspirators (referencing four specific but unnamed individuals) for federal offenses committed between 2001 and 2007. The central legal issue presented is whether the Second Circuit's precedent in *Annabi*, which favors the government in ambiguous plea agreements, should be overruled.

This is page 4 of a legal opinion (Case 22-1426) affirming the conviction and sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court holds that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement in Florida does not protect Maxwell from prosecution in New York, affirms that the indictment complied with the statute of limitations, and denies that a juror's erroneous answers during voir dire warranted a new trial. The document notes Maxwell was fined a total of $750,000.

This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024, discussing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. The court affirms that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) does not prevent the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) from prosecuting Maxwell. The text references a $750,000 fine imposed on Maxwell and cites legal precedent establishing that plea agreements generally only bind the specific district office where they are entered.

This document is page 14 of a legal filing from May 25, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues that Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the USAO-SDFL does not protect the current defendant under the Double Jeopardy Clause because the NPA was merely an agreement between parties, not a judicial adjudication of facts. The text cites *United States v. Cambindo Valencia* to distinguish how plea agreements affecting third parties (like Jesus and Rosalinda Losada) operate legally.