Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-01480958DOJ Data Set 10Other

EFTA01480958

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 10
Reference
efta-01480958
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Confidential Due Diligence Report Epstein, 57, finished serving his one-year probation in July on state charges of soliciting prostitution and soliciting a minor for prostitution. More than two dozen underage girls were identified in federal documents as having been sexually abused by Epstein. A secret deal with federal prosecutors revealed Epstein could have been charged with multiple federal counts of sexual exploitation of minors, resulting in much harsher penalties. But the feds deferred to two state charges that got him an 18-month sentence. He served only 13 months in a vacant wing at the Palm Beach County Stockade. In more than 62 pages of court documents, Scarola asserts the court should rule in Edwards' favor for at least two reasons: that Epstein has elected to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege in depositions, and Epstein's claims are unsupported and contradicted by the evidence. "Under the well-established 'sword and shield' doctrine, Epstein cannot seek damages from Edwards while at the same time asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege to block relevant discovery," Scarola wrote in court papers. "Epstein's deposition was taken at least five times," court papers say. "During all of these depositions, Epstein refused to answer any substantive questions about his sexual abuse of minor girls." Ackerman said the Rothstein lawsuit is a different situation than Epstein taking the Fifth in depositions regarding the victims, because the allegations against Rothstein and Edwards "took place outside of Epstein's personal knowledge. "This is not a case where Mr. Epstein has personal knowledge of what happened at the Rothstein firm in regard to these claims," Ackerman said. "These investors went to the Rothstein firm and were shown case files for the L.M. litigation against our client for the purpose of putting investments in. The complaint is not based on whether our client is guilty or not guilty for the crimes for which he settled or pled guilty to. What he has said in the complaint is they took the cases against me ... to attempt to inflate the value for the purpose of the investment." Scarola told Crow that Epstein has refused to answer any questions regarding his basis for claims against Edwards. ' e have undertaken not only to demonstrate absence of any evidence to support any claims that have been made against Mr. Edwards, but to affirmatively and conclusively demonstrate his complete and total innocence with respect to these matters," Scarola said. [email protected] LOAD-DATE: October 19, 2010 Confidential - This report is not to be disseminated or photocopied to any third party without the express consent of Global Security & Investigations. 1309811B.doc 21 Confidential Treatment Requested by JPMorgan Chase CONFIDENTIAL JPM-SDNY-00003200 SDNY_GM_00272398 EFTA01480958

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01656066

0p
OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S 120 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT'S PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney Southern District of New York Attorney for the United States of America Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel - EFTA00039421 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 BACKGROUND 2 ARGUMENT 3 I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case 3 A. The NPA Does Not Bind the Southern District of New York 4 1. The Text of the Agreement Does Not Contain a Promise to Bind Other Districts 5 2. The Defendant Has Offered No Evidence That the NPA Binds Other Districts 9 B. The NPA Does Not Immunize Maxwell from Prosecution 15 1. The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007 15 2. The NPA Does Not Confer Enforceable Rights on Maxwell 17 C. The Defendant

239p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01695623

0p
Court UnsealedSep 9, 2019

Epstein Depositions

10. 11. 12. l3. 14. 16. 17. l8. 19. Jeffrey Epstein v. Bradley J. Edwards, et Case No.: 50 2009 CA Attachments to Statement of Undisputed Facts Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein taken March 17, 2010 Deposition of Jane Doe taken March 11, 2010 (Pages 379, 380, 527, 564?67, 568) Deposition of LM. taken September 24, 2009 (Pages 73, 74, 164, 141, 605, 416) Deposition ofE.W. taken May 6, 2010 (1 15, 1.16, 255, 205, 215?216) Deposition of Jane Doe #4 (32-34, 136) Deposition of Jeffrey Eps

839p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01407663

51p
Court UnsealedAug 9, 2019

Maxwell Disputes

Case 18-2868, Document 284, 08/09/2019, 2628244, Page1 of 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. -------------------------------------------------- ............................................. VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, 15-cv-07433-RWS Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Statement of Contested Facts and Plaintiff’s “Undisputed Facts” Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 Laura A. M

38p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.