2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report Executive Summary.pdf

 
 
 
 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
 
 
OFFICE OF 
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 
 
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF REPORT 
 
Investigation into the  
U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida’s  
Resolution of Its 2006–2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of  
Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation 
 
 
November 2020 
 
 
 
 

 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 
The Department of Justice (Department) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) 
investigated allegations that in 2007-2008, prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the 
Southern District of Florida (USAO) improperly resolved a federal investigation into the criminal 
conduct of Jeffrey Epstein by negotiating and executing a federal non-prosecution agreement 
(NPA).  The NPA was intended to end a federal investigation into allegations that Epstein engaged 
in illegal sexual activity with girls.1  OPR also investigated whether USAO prosecutors committed 
professional misconduct by failing to consult with victims of Epstein’s crimes before the NPA was 
signed or by misleading victims regarding the status of the federal investigation after the signing.   
I. 
OVERVIEW OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
The Palm Beach (Florida) Police Department (PBPD) began investigating Jeffrey Epstein 
in 2005, after the parents of a 14-year-old girl complained that Epstein had paid her for a massage.  
Epstein was a multi-millionaire financier with residences in Palm Beach, New York City, and 
other United States and foreign locations.  The investigation led to the discovery that Epstein used 
personal assistants to recruit girls to provide massages to him, and in many instances, those 
massages led to sexual activity.  After the PBPD brought the case to the State Attorney’s Office, a 
Palm Beach County grand jury indicted Epstein, on July 19, 2006, for felony solicitation of 
prostitution in violation of Florida Statute § 796.07.  However, because the PBPD Chief and the 
lead Detective were dissatisfied with the State Attorney’s handling of the case and believed that 
the state grand jury’s charge did not address the totality of Epstein’s conduct, they referred the 
matter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in West Palm Beach for a possible federal 
investigation.  
The FBI brought the matter to an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA), who opened a file wi...

 
ii 
 
NPA required Epstein to plead guilty in state court to the then-pending state indictment against 
him and to an additional criminal information charging him with a state offense that would require 
him to register as a sexual offender—specifically, procurement of minors to engage in prostitution, 
in violation of Florida Statute § 796.03.  The NPA required Epstein to make a binding 
recommendation that the state court sentence him to serve 18 months in the county jail followed 
by 12 months of community control (home detention or “house arrest”).  The NPA also included 
provisions designed to facilitate the victims’ recovery of monetary damages from Epstein.  In 
exchange, the USAO agreed to end its investigation of Epstein and to forgo federal prosecution in 
the Southern District of Florida of him, four named co-conspirators, and “any potential 
co-conspirators.”  Victims were not informed of, or consulted about, a potential state resolution or 
the NPA prior to its signing.         
The signing of the NPA did not immediately lead to Epstein’s guilty plea and incarceration, 
however.  For the next nine months, Epstein deployed his extensive team of prominent attorneys 
to try to change the terms that his team had negotiated and he had approved, while simultaneously 
seeking to invalidate the entire NPA by persuading senior Department officials that there was no 
federal interest at issue and the matter should be left to the discretion of state law enforcement 
officials.  Through repeated communications with the USAO and senior Department officials, 
defense counsel fought the government’s interpretation of the NPA’s terms.  They also sought and 
obtained review by the Department’s Criminal Division and then the Office of the Deputy Attorney 
General, primarily on the issue of federal jurisdiction over what the defense insisted was “a 
quintessentially state matter.”  After reviewing submissions by the defense and the USAO, on 
June 23, 2008, the Office of...

 
iii 
 
 Soon after he was incarcerated, Epstein applied for the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s work 
release program, and the Sheriff approved his application.  In October 2008, Epstein began 
spending 12 hours a day purportedly working at the “Florida Science Foundation,” an entity 
Epstein had recently incorporated that was co-located at the West Palm Beach office of one of 
Epstein’s attorneys.  Although the NPA specified a term of incarceration of 18 months, Epstein 
received “gain time,” that is, time off for good behavior, and he actually served less than 13 months 
of incarceration.  On July 22, 2009, Epstein was released from custody to a one-year term of home 
detention as a condition of community control, and he registered as a sexual offender with the 
Florida Department of Law Enforcement.  After victims and news media filed suit in Florida courts 
for release of the copy of the NPA that had been filed under seal in the state court file, a state judge 
in September 2009 ordered it to be made public.   
By mid-2010, Epstein reportedly settled multiple civil lawsuits brought against him by 
victims seeking monetary damages, including the two petitioners in the CVRA litigation.  During 
the CVRA litigation, the petitioners sought discovery from the USAO, which made substantial 
document productions, filed lengthy privilege logs in support of its withholding of documents, and 
submitted declarations from the AUSA and the FBI case agents who conducted the federal 
investigation.  The USAO opposed efforts to unseal various records, as did Epstein, who was 
permitted to intervene in the litigation with respect to certain issues.  Nevertheless, the court 
ultimately ordered that substantial records relating to the USAO’s resolution of the Epstein case 
be made public.  During the course of the litigation, the court made numerous rulings interpreting 
the CVRA.  After failed efforts to settle the case, the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment 
remained pend...

 
iv 
 
abuse of minors.  The Miami Herald report led to public outrage and media scrutiny of the 
government’s actions.4    
On February 21, 2019, the district court granted the CVRA case petitioners’ Motion for 
Partial Summary Judgment, ruling that the government violated the CVRA in failing to advise the 
victims about its intention to enter into the NPA.5  The court also found that letters the government 
sent to victims after the NPA was signed, describing the investigation as ongoing, “mislead [sic] 
the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility.”  The court also highlighted 
the inequity of the USAO’s failure to communicate with the victims while at the same time 
engaging in “lengthy negotiations” with Epstein’s counsel and assuring the defense that the NPA 
would not be “made public or filed with the court.”  The court ordered the parties to submit 
additional briefs regarding the appropriate remedies.  After the court’s order, the Department 
recused the USAO from the CVRA litigation and assigned the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the 
Northern District of Georgia to handle the case for the government.  Among the remedies sought 
by the petitioners, and opposed by the government, was rescission of the NPA and federal 
prosecution of Epstein.     
On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York obtained 
a federal grand jury indictment charging Epstein with one count of sex trafficking of minors and 
one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors.  The indictment alleged that from 
2002 until 2005, Epstein created a vast network of underage victims in both New York and Florida 
whom he sexually abused and exploited.  Epstein was arrested on the charges on July 6, 2019.  In 
arguing for Epstein’s pretrial detention, prosecutors asserted that agents searching Epstein’s 
Manhattan residence found thousands of photos of nude and half-nude females, including at least 
one believed to be a mino...

 
v 
 
Secretary of Labor.  In a brief oral statement, Acosta explained that continued media attention on 
his handling of the Epstein investigation rather than on the economy was unfair to the Labor 
Department.   
On August 10, 2019, Epstein was found hanging in his cell and was later pronounced dead.  
The New York City Chief Medical Examiner concluded that Epstein had committed suicide.   
As a result of Epstein’s death, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of  
New York filed a nolle prosequi to dismiss the pending indictment against Epstein.  On  
August 27, 2019, the district court held a hearing at which more than a dozen of Epstein’s 
victims—including victims of the conduct in Florida that was addressed through the NPA—spoke 
about the impact of Epstein’s crimes.  The court dismissed the Epstein indictment on  
August 29, 2019.  
After Epstein’s death, the federal district court in Florida overseeing the CVRA litigation 
denied the petitioners their requested remedies and closed the case as moot.  Among its findings, 
the court concluded that although the government had violated the CVRA, the government had 
asserted “legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout this litigation,” and therefore had 
not litigated in bad faith.  The court also noted it expected the government to “honor its 
representation that it will provide training to its employees about the CVRA and the proper 
treatment of crime victims,” as well as honoring its promise to meet with the victims.   
On September 30, 2019, CVRA petitioner “Jane Doe 1” filed in her true name a petition 
for a writ of mandamus in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, seeking 
review of the district court’s order denying all of her requested remedies.  In its responsive brief, 
the government argued that “as a matter of law, the legal obligations under the CVRA do not attach 
prior to the government charging a case” and thus, “the CVRA was not triggered in [t...

 
vi 
 
an investigation into the matter and would review the USAO’s decision to resolve the federal 
investigation of Epstein through the NPA.6  
 
After the district court issued its ruling in the CVRA litigation, on February 21, 2019, OPR 
included within the scope of its investigation an examination of the government’s conduct that 
formed the basis for the court’s findings that the USAO violated the CVRA in failing to afford 
victims a reasonable right to confer with the government about the NPA before the agreement was 
signed and that the government affirmatively misled victims about the status of the federal 
investigation. 
 
During the course of its investigation, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of thousands 
of records from the USAO, the FBI, and other Department components, including the Office of 
the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Division, and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.  
The records included emails, letters, memoranda, and investigative materials.  OPR also collected 
and reviewed materials relating to the state investigation and prosecution of Epstein.  OPR also 
examined extensive publicly available information, including depositions, pleadings, orders, and 
other court records, and reviewed media reports and interviews, articles, podcasts, and books 
relating to the Epstein case.      
In addition to this extensive documentary review, OPR conducted more than 60 interviews 
of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their supervisors, and FBI administrative personnel; 
current and former USAO staff and attorneys; current and former Department attorneys and senior 
managers, including a former Deputy Attorney General and a former Assistant Attorney General 
for the Criminal Division; and the former State Attorney and former Assistant State Attorney in 
charge of the state investigation of Epstein.  OPR also interviewed several victims and attorneys 
representing victims, and reviewed written submissions from victims, concer...

 
vii 
 
carefully considered the comments and made changes, or noted comments, as OPR deemed 
appropriate; OPR did not, however, alter its findings and conclusions.      
Finally, OPR reviewed relevant case law, statutes, regulations, Department policy, and 
attorney professional responsibility rules as necessary to resolve the issues presented in this case 
and to determine whether the subjects committed professional misconduct. 
As part of its investigation, OPR examined the interactions between state officials and the 
federal investigators and prosecutors, but because OPR does not have jurisdiction over state 
officials, OPR did not investigate, or reach conclusions about, their conduct regarding the state 
investigation.7  Because OPR’s mission is to ensure that Department attorneys adhere to the 
standards of professional conduct, OPR’s investigation focused on the actions of the subject 
attorneys rather than on determining the full scope of Epstein’s and his assistants’ criminal 
behavior.  Accordingly, OPR considered the evidence and information regarding Epstein’s and his 
assistants’ conduct as it was known to the subjects at the time they performed their duties as 
Department attorneys.  Additional evidence and information that came to light after June 30, 2008, 
when Epstein entered his guilty plea under the NPA, did not affect the subjects’ actions prior to 
that date, and OPR did not evaluate the subjects’ conduct on the basis of that subsequent 
information.   
OPR’s investigation occurred approximately 12 years after most of the significant events 
relating to the USAO’s investigation of Epstein, the NPA, and Epstein’s guilty plea.  As a result, 
many of the subjects and witnesses were unable to recall the details of events or their own or 
others’ actions occurring in 2006-2008, such as conversations, meetings, or documents they 
reviewed at the time.8  However, OPR’s evaluation of the subjects’ conduct was aided significantly 
by extensive, conte...

 
viii 
 
investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice.9    OPR also has jurisdiction to investigate allegations 
of misconduct against Department law enforcement agents when they relate to a Department 
attorney’s alleged professional misconduct.   
In its investigations, OPR determines whether a clear and unambiguous standard governs 
the challenged conduct and whether a subject attorney violated that standard.  Department 
attorneys are subject to various legal obligations and professional standards in the performance of 
their duties, including the Constitution, statutes, standards of conduct imposed by attorney 
licensing authorities, and Department regulations and policies.  OPR finds misconduct when it 
concludes by a preponderance of the evidence that a subject attorney violated such a standard 
intentionally or recklessly.  Pursuant to OPR’s analytical framework, when OPR concludes that 
(1) no clear and unambiguous standard governs the conduct in question or (2) the subject did not 
intentionally or recklessly violate the standard that governs the conduct, then it concludes that the 
subject’s conduct does not constitute professional misconduct.  In some cases, OPR may conclude 
that a subject attorney’s conduct does not satisfy the elements necessary for a professional 
misconduct finding, but that the circumstances warrant another finding.  In such cases, OPR may 
conclude that a subject attorney exercised poor judgment, made a mistake, or otherwise acted 
inappropriately under the circumstances.  OPR may also determine that the subject attorney’s 
conduct was appropriate under the circumstances.10   
IV. 
ISSUES CONSIDERED 
 
In this investigation, OPR considered two distinct sets of allegations.  The first relates to 
the negotiation, execution, and implementation of the NPA.  The second relates to the USAO’s 
interactions with Epstein’s victims and adherence to the requirements of the CVRA.  The two sets 
of issues are described below and are analyz...

 
ix 
 
of immunity, or (6) the deportation of criminal aliens.  The potentially applicable standards that 
OPR considered as to each of these issues are identified and discussed later in this Report.  OPR 
also examined whether the evidence establishes that any of the subjects were influenced to enter 
into the NPA, or to include in the NPA terms favorable to Epstein, because of an improper motive, 
such as a bribe, political consideration, personal interest, or favoritism.  OPR also examined and 
discusses in this Report significant events that occurred after the NPA was negotiated and signed 
that shed additional light on the USAO’s handling of the Epstein investigation. 
B. 
The District Court’s Conclusion That the USAO Violated the CVRA 
 
To address the district court’s adverse judicial findings, OPR assessed the manner, content, 
and timing of the government’s interactions with victims both before and after the NPA was 
signed, including victim notification letters issued by the USAO and the FBI and interviews 
conducted by the USAO.  OPR considered whether any of the subject attorneys violated any clear 
and unambiguous standard governing victim consultation or notification.  OPR examined the 
government’s lack of consultation with the victims before the NPA was signed, as well as the 
circumstances relating to the district court’s finding that the USAO affirmatively misled Epstein’s 
victims about the status of the federal investigation after the NPA was signed. 
V. 
OPR’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 
OPR evaluated the conduct of each subject and considered his or her individual role in 
various decisions and events.  Acosta, however, made the pivotal decision to resolve the federal 
investigation of Epstein through a state-based plea and either developed or approved the terms of 
the initial offer to the defense that set the beginning point for the subsequent negotiations that led 
to the NPA.  Although Acosta did not sign the NPA, he participated in its draf...

 
x 
 
find evidence that his decision was based on corruption or other impermissible considerations, 
such as Epstein’s wealth, status, or associations.  Evidence shows that Acosta resisted defense 
efforts to have the matter returned to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed 
appropriate, and he refused to eliminate the incarceration and sexual offender registration 
requirements.  OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta’s “breakfast meeting” with one 
of Epstein’s defense counsel in October 2007 led to the NPA, which had been signed weeks earlier, 
or to any other significant decision that benefited Epstein.  The contemporaneous records show 
that USAO managers’ concerns about legal issues, witness credibility, and the impact of a trial on 
the victims led them to prefer a pre-charge resolution and that Acosta’s concerns about the proper 
role of the federal government in prosecuting solicitation crimes resulted in his preference for a 
state-based resolution.  Accordingly, OPR does not find that Acosta engaged in professional 
misconduct by resolving the federal investigation of Epstein in the way he did or that the other 
subjects committed professional misconduct through their implementation of Acosta’s decisions.   
Nevertheless, OPR concludes that Acosta’s decision to resolve the federal investigation 
through the NPA constitutes poor judgment.  Although this decision was within the scope of 
Acosta’s broad discretion and OPR does not find that it resulted from improper factors, the NPA 
was a flawed mechanism for satisfying the federal interest that caused the government to open its 
investigation of Epstein.  In Acosta’s view, the federal government’s role in prosecuting Epstein 
was limited by principles of federalism, under which the independent authority of the state should 
be recognized, and the federal responsibility in this situation was to serve as a “backstop” to state 
authorities by encouraging them to do more.  Howeve...

 
xi 
 
treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is contradictory to the 
Department’s mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of a crime endure.  
 
OPR determined that none of the subjects was responsible for communications sent to 
certain victims after the NPA was signed that described the case as “under investigation” and that 
failed to inform them of the NPA.  The letters were sent by an FBI administrative employee who 
was not directly involved in the investigation, incorporated standard form language used by the 
FBI when communicating with victims, and were not drafted or reviewed by the subjects.  
Moreover, the statement that the matter was “under investigation” was not false because the 
government in fact continued to investigate the case in anticipation that Epstein would not fulfill 
the terms of the NPA.  However, the letters risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim 
frustration and confusion by failing to provide important information about the status of the 
investigation.  The letters also demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies 
responsible for communicating with Epstein’s victims and showed a lack of attention to and 
oversight regarding communication with victims.     
After the NPA was signed, Acosta elected to defer to the State Attorney the decision 
whether to notify victims about the state’s plea hearing pursuant to the state’s own victim’s rights 
requirements.  Although Acosta’s decision was within his authority and did not constitute 
professional misconduct, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to 
make certain that the state intended to and would notify victims identified through the federal 
investigation about the state plea hearing.  His decision left victims uninformed about an important 
proceeding that resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had 
communicated with victi...

 
xii 
 
VI. 
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT 
 
The Report is divided into three chapters.  In Chapter One, OPR describes the relevant 
federal, state, and local law enforcement entities involved in investigating Epstein’s criminal 
conduct, as well as the backgrounds of the five subjects and their roles in the events in question.  
OPR provides a brief profile of Epstein and identifies the defense attorneys who interacted with 
the subjects.     
In Chapter Two, OPR sets forth an extensive account of events relating to the federal 
investigation of Epstein.  The account begins with the initial complaint in March 2005 by a young 
victim and her parents to the local police—a complaint that launched an investigation by local law 
enforcement authorities—and continues through the mid-2006 opening of the federal 
investigation; the September 2007 negotiation and signing of the NPA; Epstein’s subsequent 
efforts to invalidate the NPA through appeals to senior Department officials; Epstein’s June 2008 
guilty plea in state court; and, finally, efforts by the AUSA to ensure Epstein’s compliance with 
the terms of the NPA during his incarceration and until his term of home detention ended in July 
2010.  After describing the relevant events, OPR analyzes the professional misconduct allegations 
relating to the decisions made regarding the development and execution of the NPA.  OPR 
describes the relevant standards and sets forth its findings and conclusions regarding the subjects’ 
conduct.  
Chapter Three concerns the government’s interactions with victims and the district court’s 
findings regarding the CVRA.  OPR describes the relevant events and analyzes the subjects’ 
conduct in light of the pertinent standards.    
OPR sets forth the extensive factual detail provided in Chapters Two and Three, including 
internal USAO and Department communications, because doing so is necessary for a full 
understanding of the subjects’ actions and of the bases for OPR’s conclusions.