Document 2

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 2 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - v. - GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. Upon the application of the United States, by the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Audrey Strauss, by Assistant United States Attorney Alex Rossmiller; It is found that the Indictment in the above-captioned case is currently sealed and the United States Attorney's Office has applied to have that Indictment unsealed, and it is therefore: ORDERED that the Indictment in the above-captioned action be unsealed and remain unsealed pending further order of the Court. Dated: New York, New York July 2, 2020 Katherine H Parker HONORABLE KATHARINE H. PARKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOJ-OGR-00001485 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document 2 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE United States of America v. Case No. 20-mj-132-AJ-1 Ghislaine Maxwell Public Access Findings I. Background This hearing is taking place during the public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 outbreak. All parties to this proceeding, including the court, are appearing remotely via video. In light of the anticipated volume of public and media interest and the operational/capacity limitations of videoconference technology, public and media access to the proceeding will be via telephonic conference. The court's protocols for this hearing are laid out in Standing Order 20-7 (Mar. 23, 2020).1 The court finds that conducting this hearing via video - under the unique circumstances presented by the COVID-19 pandemic - is the best way to ensure the safety of the litigants, court personnel, and the public at large. All findings made in the court's prior standing orders are 1 Standing Order 20-7 was extended to August 1, 2020 by Standing Order 20-21 (June 17, 2020). 1 DOJ-OGR-00019193 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document 2 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE United States of America v. Case No. 20-mj-132-AJ-1 Ghislaine Maxwell Public Access Findings I. Background This hearing is taking place during the public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 outbreak. All parties to this proceeding, including the court, are appearing remotely via video. In light of the anticipated volume of public and media interest and the operational/capacity limitations of videoconference technology, public and media access to the proceeding will be via telephonic conference. The court's protocols for this hearing are laid out in Standing Order 20-7 (Mar. 23, 2020).1 The court finds that conducting this hearing via video - under the unique circumstances presented by the COVID-19 pandemic - is the best way to ensure the safety of the litigants, court personnel, and the public at large. All findings made in the court's prior standing orders are 1 Standing Order 20-7 was extended to August 1, 2020 by Standing Order 20-21 (June 17, 2020). 1 DOJ-OGR-00019223 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 2 of 14 this way, EPSTEIN created a vast network of underage victims for him to sexually exploit in locations including New York and Palm Beach. 3. The victims described herein were as young as 14 years old at the time they were abused by JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, and were, for various reasons, often particularly vulnerable to exploitation. EPSTEIN intentionally sought out minors and knew that many of his victims were in fact under the age of 18, including because, in some instances, minor victims expressly told him their age. 4. In creating and maintaining this network of minor victims in multiple states to sexually abuse and exploit, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, worked and conspired with others, including employees and associates who facilitated his conduct by, among other things, contacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters with EPSTEIN at the New York Residence and at the Palm Beach Residence. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 5. During all time periods charged in this Indictment, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, was a financier with multiple residences in the continental United States, including the New York Residence and the Palm Beach Residence. 6. Beginning in at least 2002, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, enticed and recruited, and caused to be enticed and 2 DOJ-OGR-00000259 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 2 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. ORDER 20 Cr. 330 ( ) (18 U.S.C. §§ 2422, 2423(a), 1623, 371, & 2.) AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney. DOJ-OGR-00001486 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document 2 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 7 incorporated herein. See Standing Orders 20-5 (Mar. 20, 2020) and 20-21 (June 17, 2020).2 The hearing held today will be an initial appearance and removal hearing for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. Today's hearing has been noticed as a video hearing. In the event defendant consents to proceed, the court makes the findings below. Before convening this video/telephone hearing, the court carefully considered the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to public court proceedings and the public's and press's First Amendment rights to in-person access to such proceedings. See Bucci v. United States, 662 F.3d 18, 22 (1st Cir. 2011) (citing Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984)); Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside Cty., 464 U.S. 501, 509-10 (1984). This Order details my findings. II. Partial Rather Than Total Closure The court first finds that this video hearing constitutes a partial, rather than total, closure of these proceedings. The court so finds because the goals of public access will still be achieved: this proceeding is not being held in secret and the public, including members of the press, maintains the 2 All the court's Standing Orders regarding the COVID-19 outbreak can be found here: http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/court-response-coronavirus-disease-covid-19. 2 DOJ-OGR-00019194 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 3 of 14 recruited, dozens of minor girls to engage in sex acts with him, after which EPSTEIN paid the victims hundreds of dollars in cash, at the New York Residence and the Palm Beach Residence. 7. In both New York and Florida, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, perpetuated this abuse in similar ways. Victims were initially recruited to provide "massages" to EPSTEIN, which would be performed nude or partially nude, would become increasingly sexual in nature, and would typically include one or more sex acts. EPSTEIN paid his victims hundreds of dollars in cash for each encounter. Moreover, EPSTEIN actively encouraged certain of his victims to recruit additional girls to be similarly sexually abused. EPSTEIN incentivized his victims to become recruiters by paying these victim-recruiters hundreds of dollars for each girl that they brought to EPSTEIN. In so doing, EPSTEIN maintained a steady supply of new victims to exploit. The New York Residence 8. At all times relevant to this Indictment, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, possessed and controlled a multi-story private residence on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York, i.e., the New York Residence. Between at least in or about 2002 and in or about 2005, EPSTEIN abused numerous minor victims at the New York Residence by causing these victims to be recruited to engage in paid sex acts with him. 3 DOJ-OGR-00000260 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 4 of 14 9. When a victim arrived at the New York Residence, she typically would be escorted to a room with a massage table, where she would perform a massage on JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant. The victims, who were as young as 14 years of age, were told by EPSTEIN or other individuals to partially or fully undress before beginning the "massage." During the encounter, EPSTEIN would escalate the nature and scope of physical contact with his victim to include, among other things, sex acts such as groping and direct and indirect contact with the victim's genitals. EPSTEIN typically would also masturbate during these sexualized encounters, ask victims to touch him while he masturbated, and touch victims' genitals with his hands or with sex toys. 10. In connection with each sexual encounter, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, or one of his employees or associates, paid the victim in cash. Victims typically were paid hundreds of dollars in cash for each encounter. 11. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, knew that many of his New York victims were underage, including because certain victims told him their age. Further, once these minor victims were recruited, many were abused by EPSTEIN on multiple subsequent occasions at the New York Residence. EPSTEIN sometimes personally contacted victims to schedule appointments at the New York Residence. In other instances, EPSTEIN directed 4 DOJ-OGR-00000261 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document 2 Filed 07/02/20 Page 4 of 7 state. Further, in New Hampshire approximately 3,475 people are being monitored for signs of COVID-19 infection, over 120,307 total tests have been reported (both positive and negative test results), and community-based transmission has been confirmed.4 Nationally, the number of confirmed cases has grown to over 2,797,737, with 130,984 cases resulting in death.5 Given the contagious nature of the virus and the exponential growth in cases, COVID-19 presents an enormous danger to the health and safety of the public, including the litigants, security, and court personnel involved in this proceeding. The court's interest in preventing the spread of COVID-19 and preserving the health of all hearing participants, including the public, is a weighty and substantial interest that would likely be prejudiced if the court were not to impose this partial closure. See United States v. Smith, 426 F.3d 567, 572-73 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding that U.S. Marshal's policy after September 11th of requiring unknown visitors to court to produce photo identification constituted partial closure of courtroom 4 COVID-19, N.H. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., https://www.nh.gov/covid19/ (last visited 12:00 p.m. July 2, 2020); Explore the Data: Tracking COVID-19 in New Hampshire, N.H. Pub. Radio, https://www.nhpr.org/post/updated-tracking-covid-19-cases-and-testing-new-hampshire#stream/0 (last visited 12:00 p.m. July 2, 2020). 5 Real Clear Politics, https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ (last visited 12:45 p.m. July 2, 2020). 4 DOJ-OGR-00019196 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 5 of 14 employees and associates, including a New York-based employee ("Employee-1"), to communicate with victims via phone to arrange for these victims to return to the New York Residence for additional sexual encounters with EPSTEIN. 12. Additionally, and to further facilitate his ability to abuse minor girls in New York, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, asked and enticed certain of his victims to recruit additional girls to perform "massages" and similarly engage in sex acts with EPSTEIN. When a victim would recruit another girl for EPSTEIN, he paid both the victim-recruiter and the new victim hundreds of dollars in cash. Through these victim-recruiters, EPSTEIN gained access to and was able to abuse dozens of additional minor girls. 13. In particular, certain recruiters brought dozens of additional minor girls to the New York Residence to give massages to and engage in sex acts with JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant. EPSTEIN encouraged victims to recruit additional girls by offering to pay these victim-recruiters for every additional girl they brought to EPSTEIN. When a victim-recruiter accompanied a new minor victim to the New York Residence, both the victim-recruiter and the new minor victim were paid hundreds of dollars by EPSTEIN for each encounter. In addition, certain victim-recruiters routinely scheduled these 5 DOJ-OGR-00000262 --- PAGE BREAK --- that was justified by substantial interest of promoting security and preventing terrorism). B. Second, the court finds that this partial closure of court proceedings is narrowly tailored to protect public health and safety and is less restrictive than the court's current in-court hearing protocols. Allowing the public to access these proceedings through telephone conference allows a large number (up to 500) of members of the public to access the proceedings while, at the same time, protecting the health of all involved by limiting the potential exposure of the public, parties, and court staff to COVID-19. Importantly, the court finds that, in light of the court's current restrictions on the number of people permitted in the courtroom, providing public telephonic access is less restrictive than holding an in-person hearing which only a limited number of people can attend. Further, via telephone, even individuals who would have otherwise been prohibited from entering the courthouse - for example, people who have tested positive for COVID-19 - now have access (even though virtual) to the proceedings. See Standing Order 20-9 (Mar. 20, 2020) (prohibiting certain individuals from entering the courthouse, including people diagnosed with or exposed to someone diagnosed with COVID-19). Providing the public access to this proceeding via telephone is the least restrictive means of protecting the --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 6 of 14 encounters through Employee-1, who sometimes asked the recruiters to bring a specific minor girl for EPSTEIN. The Palm Beach Residence 14. In addition to recruiting and abusing minor girls in New York, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, created a similar network of minor girls to victimize in Palm Beach, Florida, where EPSTEIN owned, possessed and controlled another large residence, i.e., the Palm Beach Residence. EPSTEIN frequently traveled from New York to Palm Beach by private jet, before which an employee or associate would ensure that minor victims were available for encounters upon his arrival in Florida. 15. At the Palm Beach Residence, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, engaged in a similar course of abusive conduct. When a victim initially arrived at the Palm Beach Residence, she would be escorted to a room, sometimes by an employee of EPSTEIN's, including, at times, two assistants ("Employee-2" and "Employee-3") who, as described herein, were also responsible for scheduling sexual encounters with minor victims. Once inside, the victim would provide a nude or semi-nude massage for EPSTEIN, who would himself typically be naked. During these encounters, EPSTEIN would escalate the nature and scope of the physical contact to include sex acts such as groping and direct and indirect contact with the victim's genitals. EPSTEIN would also typically masturbate during these encounters, ask victims - 6 DOJ-OGR-00000263 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document 2 Filed 07/02/20 Page 6 of 7 substantial interest of public health and safety. See United States v. Alimehmeti, 284 F. Supp. 3d 477, 490 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (granting partial closure of courtroom to protect identity of undercover agents: courtroom was closed to public during undercover agents' testimony but audio of testimony was live-streamed into different courtroom during partial closure and transcripts of testimony were made available to public promptly). C. Third, the court has considered reasonable alternatives to this partial closure. The court has considered alternatives to this partial closure and finds they are neither reasonable nor feasible under the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and this case, particularly the necessity that this hearing be conducted promptly. IV. Conclusion In sum, the court finds that in this case a partial closure of court proceedings is necessary in that today's hearing will be conducted by video and telephone conference. This partial closure is justified by the substantial interest of protecting public health and safety from the spread of COVID-19 and is narrowly tailored to protect that interest. The public maintains the opportunity to access these proceedings in full by telephone. 6 DOJ-OGR-00019198 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 7 of 14 to touch him while he masturbated, and touch victims' genitals with his hands or with sex toys. 16. In connection with each sexual encounter, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, or one of his employees or associates, paid the victim in cash. Victims typically were paid hundreds of dollars for each encounter. 17. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, knew that certain of his victims were underage, including because certain victims told him their age. In addition, as with New York-based victims, many Florida victims, once recruited, were abused by JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, on multiple additional occasions. 18. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, who during the relevant time period was frequently in New York, would arrange for Employee-2 or other employees to contact victims by phone in advance of EPSTEIN's travel to Florida to ensure appointments were scheduled for when he arrived. In particular, in certain instances, Employee-2 placed phone calls to minor victims in Florida to schedule encounters at the Palm Beach Residence. At the time of certain of those phone calls, EPSTEIN and Employee-2 were in New York, New York. Additionally, certain of the individuals victimized at the Palm Beach Residence were contacted by phone by Employee-3 to schedule these encounters. 7 DOJ-OGR-00000264 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document 2 Filed 07/02/20 Page 7 of 7 SO ORDERED. Andrea K. Johnstone United States Magistrate Judge July 2, 2020 cc: Counsel of record 7 DOJ-OGR-00019199 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 8 of 14 19. Moreover, as in New York, to ensure a steady stream of minor victims, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, asked and enticed certain victims in Florida to recruit other girls to engage in sex acts. EPSTEIN paid hundreds of dollars to victim-recruiters for each additional girl they brought to the Palm Beach Residence. STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS 20. From at least in or about 2002, up to and including in or about 2005, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an offense against the United States, to wit, sex trafficking of minors, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1591(a) and (b). 21. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, and others known and unknown, would and did, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, and obtain, by any means a person, and to benefit, financially and by receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture which has engaged in any such act, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a 8 DOJ-OGR-00000265 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 9 of 14 commercial sex act, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a) and (b)(2). Overt Acts 22. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere: a. In or about 2004, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, enticed and recruited multiple minor victims, including minor victims identified herein as Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3, to engage in sex acts with EPSTEIN at his residences in Manhattan, New York, and Palm Beach, Florida, after which he provided them with hundreds of dollars in cash for each encounter. b. In or about 2002, Minor Victim-1 was recruited to engage in sex acts with EPSTEIN and was repeatedly sexually abused by EPSTEIN at the New York Residence over a period of years and was paid hundreds of dollars for each encounter. EPSTEIN also encouraged and enticed Minor Victim-1 to recruit other girls to engage in paid sex acts, which she did. EPSTEIN asked Minor Victim-1 how old she was, and Minor Victim-1 answered truthfully. c. In or about 2004, Employee-1, located in the Southern District of New York, and on behalf of EPSTEIN, placed 9 DOJ-OGR-00000266 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 10 of 14 a telephone call to Minor Victim-1 in order to schedule an appointment for Minor Victim-1 to engage in paid sex acts with EPSTEIN. d. In or about 2004, Minor Victim-2 was recruited to engage in sex acts with EPSTEIN and was repeatedly sexually abused by EPSTEIN at the Palm Beach Residence over a period of years and was paid hundreds of dollars after each encounter. EPSTEIN also encouraged and enticed Minor Victim-2 to recruit other girls to engage in paid sex acts, which she did. e. In or about 2005, Employee-2, located in the Southern District of New York, and on behalf of EPSTEIN, placed a telephone call to Minor Victim-2 in order to schedule an appointment for Minor Victim-2 to engage in paid sex acts with EPSTEIN. f. In or about 2005, Minor Victim-3 was recruited to engage in sex acts with EPSTEIN and was repeatedly sexually abused by EPSTEIN at the Palm Beach Residence over a period of years and was paid hundreds of dollars for each encounter. EPSTEIN also encouraged and enticed Minor Victim-3 to recruit other girls to engage in paid sex acts, which she did. EPSTEIN asked Minor Victim-3 how old she was, and Minor Victim-3 answered truthfully. 10 DOJ-OGR-00000267 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 11 of 14 g. In or about 2005, Employee-2, located in the Southern District of New York, and on behalf of EPSTEIN, placed a telephone call to Minor Victim-3 in Florida in order to schedule an appointment for Minor Victim-3 to engage in paid sex acts with EPSTEIN. h. In or about 2004, Employee-3 placed a telephone call to Minor Victim-3 in order to schedule an appointment for Minor Victim-3 to engage in paid sex acts with EPSTEIN. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.) COUNT TWO (Sex Trafficking) The Grand Jury further charges: 23. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 19 and 22 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. 24. From at least in or about 2002, up to and including in or about 2005, in the Southern District of New York, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, willfully and knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, did recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, and obtain by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act, and did aid and abet the same, to wit, EPSTEIN recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, and obtained numerous 11 DOJ-OGR-00000268 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 12 of 14 individuals who were less than 18 years old, including but not limited to Minor Victim-1, as described above, and who were then caused to engage in at least one commercial sex act in Manhattan, New York. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a), (b)(2), and 2.) FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS 25. As a result of committing the offense alleged in Count Two of this Indictment, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1594(c)(1), any property, real and personal, that was used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of the offense alleged in Count Two, and any property, real or personal, constituting or derived from any proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the offense alleged in Count Two, or any property traceable to such property, and the following specific property: a. The lot or parcel of land, together with its buildings, appurtenances, improvements, fixtures, attachments and easements, located at 9 East 71st Street, New York, New York, with block number 1386 and lot number 10, owned by Maple, Inc. 12 DOJ-OGR-00000269 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 13 of 14 Substitute Asset Provision 26. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant: (a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; (b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third person; (c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; (d) has been substantially diminished in value; or (e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be subdivided without difficulty; it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), to seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendant up to the value of the above forfeitable property. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1594; Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p); and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461.) FOREPERSON Geoffrey S. Berman United States Attorney 13 DOJ-OGR-00000270 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 14 of 14 Form No. USA-33s-274 (Ed. 9-25-58) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. INDICTMENT (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1591(a), (b)(2), and 2) GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney Signature of Foreperson Foreperson 14 DOJ-OGR-00000271