← Back to home

Document DOJ-OGR-00023032

AI Analysis

Summary: The document reports on the findings of an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) into the handling of Jeffrey Epstein's case. OPR concluded that the U.S. Attorney had broad discretion to resolve the case and that the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) did not violate any clear and unambiguous standards or policies. The investigation found no evidence of improper motives or influences in the negotiation and approval of the NPA.
Significance: This document is potentially important because it reveals the findings of an investigation into the handling of Jeffrey Epstein's case, specifically the decision to enter into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with him. It establishes that the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) found no evidence of professional misconduct or improper influence in the negotiation and approval of the NPA.
Key Topics: Investigation into the handling of Jeffrey Epstein's case Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and its terms Allegations of improper influence and professional misconduct
Key People:
  • Acosta - U.S. Attorney who negotiated and approved the NPA with Epstein
  • Epstein - Subject of the federal investigation and NPA
Document Type
Report
Date
Unknown
Pages
1
Folder
IMAGES008

Full Text

III. OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR STANDARD, OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN NEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA 134 A. U.S. Attorneys Have Broad Discretion to Resolve Investigations or Cases as They Deem Appropriate, and Acosta's Decision to Decline to Prosecute Epstein Federally Does Not Constitute Professional Misconduct 135 B. No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Precluded Acosta's Use of a Non-Prosecution Agreement to Resolve the Federal Investigation of Epstein 136 C. The NPA's Individual Provisions Did Not Violate Any Clear and Unambiguous Standards 137 1. Acosta Had Authority to Approve an Agreement That Required Epstein to Plead to Offenses Resulting in an 18-Month Term of Incarceration 137 2. The USAO's Agreement Not to Prosecute Unidentified "Potential Co-Conspirators" Did Not Violate a Clear and Unambiguous Department Policy 139 3. The NPA Did Not Violate Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens 140 IV. THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE INFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA TERMS FAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND BENEFITS TO EPSTEIN 140 A. OPR Found No Evidence of Criminal Corruption, Such as Bribery, Gratuity, or Illegal Political or Personal Consideration 141 B. Contemporaneous Written Records and Witness and Subject Interviews Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the Subjects Were Improperly Influenced by Epstein's Status, Wealth, or Associations 142 1. The Contemporaneous Records Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the NPA Resulted from Improper Factors 142 2. The Subjects Asserted That They Were Motivated by Reasonable Strategic and Policy Considerations, Not Improper Influences 143 3. Subject and Witness Interviews and Contemporaneous Records Identified Case-Specific Considerations Relating to Evidence, Legal Theories, Litigation Risk, and a Trial's Potential Impact on Victims 144 C. Other Significant Factors Are Inconsistent with a Conclusion That the Subjects' Actions Were Motivated by Improper Influences 149 xviii DOJ-OGR-00023032