Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00100357DOJ Data Set 9Other

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00100357
Pages
9
Persons
4
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of the United States Of America for a Search and Seizure Warrant for the Premises Known and Described as 9 East 71st Street, New York, New York and Any Closed Containers/Items Contained Therein TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL Agent Affidavit in Support of Application for Search and Seizure Warrant SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK) ss.: Amanda Young, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I. Introduction A. Affiant 1. I have been a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBP") since 2017. During that time, I have participated in numerous investigations and prosecutions of crimes against children, including the sex trafficking of minors. I have also participated in the execution of multiple search warrants. 2. I make this Affidavit in support of an application pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for a warrant to search the premises specified below

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of the United States Of America for a Search and Seizure Warrant for the Premises Known and Described as 9 East 71st Street, New York, New York and Any Closed Containers/Items Contained Therein TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL Agent Affidavit in Support of Application for Search and Seizure Warrant SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK) ss.: Amanda Young, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I. Introduction A. Affiant 1. I have been a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBP") since 2017. During that time, I have participated in numerous investigations and prosecutions of crimes against children, including the sex trafficking of minors. I have also participated in the execution of multiple search warrants. 2. I make this Affidavit in support of an application pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for a warrant to search the premises specified below (the "Subject Premises") for the purpose of photographing, video-recording or otherwise documenting the appearance of its interior, and to seize the items and information described in Attachment A. This affidavit is based upon my personal knowledge; my review of documents and other evidence; and my conversations with other law enforcement personnel. Because this affidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause, it does not include all the facts that I have learned during the course of my investigation. Where the contents of documents and the actions, statements, and conversations of others are reported herein, they are reported in substance and in part, except where otherwise indicated. 2 2017.08.02 EFTA00100357 B. The Subject Premises 3. The Subject Premises are particularly described as a nearly 19,000 square foot multi-story, single-family residence located at 9 East 71st Street, New York, New York, and include all locked and closed containers found therein. As detailed further herein, the Subject Premises is believed to be owned, possessed and controlled by JEFFREY EPSTEIN, a target subject of this investigation. A photograph of the front entrance to the Subject Premises is included below: C. The Target Subject and the Subject Offenses 4. The Target Subject of this investigation is JEFFREY EPSTEIN. 5. For the reasons detailed below, I believe that there is probable cause to believe that the Subject Premises contain evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1591 (sex trafficking of minors) and Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 (sex trafficking conspiracy) (the "Subject Offenses") by the Target Subject. 3 2017.08.02 EFTA00100358 II. Probable Cause A. Probable Cause Regarding the Target Subject's Commission of the Subject Offenses 6. On or about July 2, 2019, a grand jury in this District returned an Indictment charging JEFFREY EPSTEIN with the Subject Offenses. A copy of the Indictment is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference. B. Probable Cause Justifying Search of the Subject Premises 7. As set forth in Exhibit A, from at least in or about 2002, up to and including at least in or about 2005, JEFFREY EPSTEIN sexually abused multiple minor girls in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere. During that time and continuing to the present, EPSTEIN possessed and controlled the Subject Premises, which is described in Exhibit A as "the New York Residence." 8. As further set forth in paragraphs 8 through 10 of Exhibit A, from at least in or about 2002, up to and including at least in or about 2005, EPSTEIN sexually abused numerous minor victims at the Subject Premises. In particular, and as alleged in the Indictment, when a victim arrived at the Subject Premises, she would be escorted to a room inside the Subject Premises with a massage table, where she would perform a massage on EPSTEIN. 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 victims' 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. Following each encounter, EPSTEIN or one of his employees or associates paid the victim in cash. 4 2017.08.02 EFTA00100359 9. As set forth in paragraphs 12 through 13 of Exhibit A, 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 minor girls to perform "massages" and similarly engage in sex acts with EPSTEIN. When a victim would recruit another minor girl for EPSTEIN, he paid both the victim-recruiter and the new victim hundreds of dollars in cash. EPSTEIN knew that his victims were underage, including because certain victims told him their age. 10. One of the victims identified in paragraph 22 of Exhibit A is Victim-1. As part of the FBI's investigation of EPSTEIN, other law enforcement officers and I have interviewed Victim-1.' I know from my personal participation of interviews with Victim-1, my conversations with other law enforcement officers who have interviewed Victim-1, and my review of notes and reports of other interviews with Victim-1 that Victim-1 has provided the following information, in substance and in part: a. Between approximately 2002 and 2005, EPSTEIN sexually abused Victim-1 on multiple occasions in the Subject Premises. This sexual abuse all occurred when Victim-1 was under the age of 18. b. During that same period, Victim-1 observed multiple floors of the Subject Premises and numerous individual rooms within the Subject Premises. Victim-1 has provided detailed descriptions of certain aspects of the interior of the Subject Premises, including Victim-1 's In meetings with the Government, Victim-1 has disclosed that, approximately a decade ago, she committed marriage fraud in order to obtain a green card and, subsequently, U.S. citizenship. She has also disclosed personal substance abuse, primarily involving the abuse of prescription drugs, during various periods between the early 2000s and 2019. Victim-1 has also disclosed having worked for approximately a year at a "happy-ending" massage parlor, performing paid sex acts. Victim-1 is currently pursuing a civil damages claim against EPSTEIN for his sexual abuse of her. Information provided by Victim-1 has proven reliable and has been corroborated by independent evidence, including documents and records obtained during the investigation and the accounts of other victims whom Victim-1 has never met. 5 2017.08.02 EFTA00100360 memory of specific details regarding the layout, furnishings, decorations, and floor pattern of various areas within the Subject Premises. II. I know from my review of publicly available corporate and property records that at all times relevant to the Subject Offenses as alleged in the Indictment, the Subject Premises was owned by Nine East 71st Street Corporation (the "Corporation"). The President of the Corporation is listed as JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and no other officers or occupants are identified on the Corporation paperwork. In or around December 2011, the Subject Premises was transferred from the Corporation to another corporate entity, Maple, Inc., which is registered in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where EPSTEIN was then known to and continues to reside. Though no officer of Maple, Inc., is identified in the transfer paperwork, the signature of both the buyer and seller in the transaction appear to be the same. Moreover, the deed lists the consideration for the transfer of the Subject Premises as $10, an amount facially inconsistent with a fair market transfer to a third party. 12. I know from my participation in this investigation that EPSTEIN has continued to possess and control the Subject Premises from at least in or about 2002 to the present. In particular, I know from my review of Sex Offender Registration records that EPSTEIN presently lists the Subject Premises as one of his residences. Moreover, as described in paragraph 11, above, although ownership of Subject Premises was transferred from one corporate entity to another in December 2011, both corporations appear to be under EPSTEIN's control, and EPSTEIN appears to remain the sole owner and occupant of the Subject Premises. 13. Additionally, although Victim-1 has not been in the Subject Premises since in or around 2005, based on my review of publicly available records maintained by the New York City Department of Buildings ("DOB"), it does not appear that there have been any significant or 6 2017.08.02 EFTA00100361 structural renovations to the interior of the Subject Premises since that time. In particular, the DOB reflects only three approved alteration permits for the Subject Premises, one in or around 2011 which authorized facade restoration but expressly noted that there would be "no change to occupancy, use egress or bulk," and two permitting the "installation of heavy duty sidewalk shed" outside of the Subject Premises at various points, but similarly noting that there would be "no changes in use, egress or occupancy." As such, while it is possible that certain interior decorations have changed since 2005, it is probable that structural components of the interior, such as Victim-I's description of the layout of rooms and floors, among other details, would remain the same. 7 2017.08.02 EFTA00100362 III. Conclusion and Ancillary Provisions 14. Based on the foregoing, I respectfully submit that there is probable cause to believe that photographing, video-recording, and otherwise documenting the appearance of the interior of the Subject Premises, and seizing the items described in Attachment A, will yield evidence of the Subject Offenses. In particular, evidence depicting the interior of the Subject Premises and reflecting the occupancy, ownership, layout, furnishings, decorations, and floor pattern of the Subject Premises will corroborate Victim-1's account of EPSTEIN's commission of the Subject Offenses. I further submit that there is probable cause to believe that such evidence will be located within the Subject Premises and therefore request the court to issue a warrant to seize the items and information specified in Attachment A to this affidavit and to the Search and Seizure Warrant. Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation Sworn to before me on July 5, 2019 THEHONORABLE BARBARA MOSES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 2017.08.02 EFTA00100363 EXHIBIT A 9 2017.08.02 EFTA00100364 ATTACHMENT A I. Premises to be Searched—Subject Premises 1. The premises to be searched (the "Subject Premises") are described as a nearly 19,000 square foot multi-story single-family residence located at 9 East 71st Street, New York, New York, and include all locked and closed containers found therein. A photograph of the front entrance to the Subject Premises is included below: II. Items to Be Seized I. This warrant authorizes executing agents to photograph, video record and otherwise document the full interior of the Subject Premises, including any items, furnishings, or possessions therein. 2. In addition, this warrant authorizes the seizure of certain evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591 (sex trafficking of minors) and 371 (sex trafficking conspiracy) (the "Subject Offenses") described as follows: a. Evidence concerning occupancy or ownership of the Subject Premises, including utility and telephone bills, mail envelopes, addressed correspondence, diaries, statements, identification documents, address books, telephone directories, and photographs of its occupant(s). b. Evidence concerning the layout, furnishings, decorations, and floor pattern of the Subject Premises, including photographs and blueprints of the Subject Premises. 2017.08.02 EFTA00100365

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Westlaw.

Westlaw. Pagel 749 F.3d 999, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1270 (Cite as: 749 F.3d 999) H United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Jane DOE NO. 1, Jane Doe No. 2, Plaintiffs-Appellees, 1. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Roy Black, Martin G. Weinberg, Jeffrey Epstein, Intervenors-Appellants. No. 13-12923. April 18, 2014. Background: Alleged minor victims of federal sex crimes brought action against the United States alleging violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act ( CVRA) re- lated to the United States Attorney Office's execution of non-prosecution agree- ment with alleged perpetrator. After the victims moved for disclosure of corres- pondence concerning the non-prosecution agreement, the alleged perpetrator and his criminal defense attorneys intervened to assert privilege to prevent the disclos- ure of their plea negotiations. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Court, No. 9:08-CV-80736-KAM, ordered disclosure. The inter- v

16p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 1:08-cv-80736-KAM

Case 1:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 FRIT1113w1 O_to D.C. ELECTRONIC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-80736-Civ-MAR RA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner. JULY 7, 2008 STEVEN M. LARIMORE CLERK U.S. GIST. CT. S.D. OF FLA. • MIAMI enc y VICTIM'S PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CRIME VICTIM'S RIGHTS ACT, 18 U.S.0 . SECTION 3771 COMES NOW the Petitioner, JANE DOE (hereinafter "Petitioner"), by and through her undersigned attorneys, pursuant to the Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 ("CVRA"), and files this Petition for Enforcement in the above styled action as follows: 1. Petitioner, an adult, as a minor child was a victim of federal crimes committed by JEFFREY EPSTEIN (hereinafter "Defendant"). These crimes included sex trafficking of children by fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, use of a means of interstate commerce to entice a minor to commit prostitution, in violation of 18

10p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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 9OtherUnknown

Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22

Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-LAP Ms. Maxwell's Reply In Support Of Iler Objections to tnsealinu Sealed Materials Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue EFTA00074964 Ca_QatIgt24743tictoWneDbtOrfiefiVIMOXIle?BOWERKVaffizte12401 22 Introduction This Court asked the parties to brief three issues: "(a) the weight of presumption of public access that should be afforded to an item, (b) the identification and weight of any countervailing interests supporting continued sealing/redaction of the item, and (c) whether the countervailing interests rebut the presumption of public access to the item." DE 1044 at 1. Plaintiff and the Miami Herald's responses improperly afford the highest level of presumption to discovery dispute documents, deny that any co

40p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 23

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING OF INTERVENORS ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER CONCERNING PRODUCTION, USE, AND DISCLOSURE OF PLEA NEGOTIATIONS During the hearing on August 12, 2011, the Court directed the proposed intervenors to file additional briefing on their argument that plea negotiations are privileged and not subject to discovery or use as evidence in these proceedings. Proposed intervenors submit the following memorandum of law, which is identical to Parts I and II of the memorandum of law submitted by proposed intervenor Jeffrey Epstein in support of his motion for a protective order and his opposition to the motions of the plaintiffs for production, use,

23p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER RENEWED MOTION FOR BAIL Mark S. Cohen Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP New York, NY 10022 Phone: Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim New York, NY 10011 Phone: Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00094289 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 ARGUMENT 7 I. Reconsideration of the Court's Bail Decision is Appropriate Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(O 7 II. Ms. Maxwell Should Be Granted Bail Under the Proposed Strict Bail Conditions 10 A. Ms. Maxwell Has Deep Family Ties to the United States and Numerous Sureties to Support Her Bond 10 1. Ms. Maxwell is Devoted to Her Spouse and Stepchildren and Would Never Destroy Her Family By Leaving th

45p

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.