HOUSE OVERSIGHT 012670 05/16/2008 11:16 FAX 05/16/08 FRI 11:08 FAX 0 0 2 / 0 0 6 tJ 002 Child Eaploitarlon and 003-ceraty Section Jay Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Citigroup Center 153 E. 53" St. New York, NY 10022-4611 U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division Andrew G. Oosterbaan, Chief 1400 A'ew York Avenue, NW Suite 600 Wialtingion, DC20530 (202) 514-5780 FAX: (202) 514-1793 May 15, 2008 Re: Investigation of Jeffery Epstein Dear Mr. Lefkowitz: Pursuant to your request and the request of U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, we have independently evaluated certain issues raised in the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein to determine whether a decision to prosecute Mr. Epstein for federal criminal violations would contradict criminal enforcement policy interests. As part of our evaluation, we have reviewed letters written on behalf of Mr. Epstein on February 1, 2007, June 25, 2007, July 6, 2007, March 28, 2008, April 8, 2008, April 28, 2008, and May 14, 2008, with their attachments. We have also reviewed memos prepared by the U.S. Attorney's Office. As you will recall, we met with you and other representatives of Mr. Epstein to further discuss your views on the propriety of a federal prosecution. We have discussed the factual and legal issues you raise with the Criminal Division's Appellate Section, and we consulted with the Office of Enforcement Operations concerning the petite policy. We are examining the narrow question as to whether there is a legitimate basis for the U.S. Attorney's Office to proceed with a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein. Ultimately, the prosecutorial decision making authority within a U.S. Attorney's Office lies with the U.S. Attorney. Therefore, to borrow a phrase from the case law, the question we soudit to answer was whether U.S. Attorney Acosta would abuse his discretion if he authorized prosecution in this case. As you know, our review of this case is limited, both factually and legally. We