Epstein Data Wiki

EFTA01703108

Properties1
tagsdocument, indictment, draft, unfiled, usao-sdfl, 2007, jeffrey-epstein

15 min read

EFTA01703108 is a 56-page draft federal indictment, Bates-stamped EFTA_01703108 through EFTA_01703163 in Data Set 10, captioned “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT / SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA,” naming as defendants “JEFFREY EPSTEIN” and three co-defendants whose names, and one alias, are blacked out throughout this copy.1 Its cover page carries a handwritten annotation, top left, reading “old Draft.”2 The “Case No:” line is blank; no docket number was ever entered.1 The final page carries the printed line “A TRUE BILL / FOREPERSON” over a blank signature line, and a separate signature block for “R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA / UNITED STATES ATTORNEY” over a blank line, and for “ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY” over a line whose printed name is blacked out; none of the three lines is signed.34 This page describes the instrument itself — its charging structure, its unsigned and unfiled state, and a second, textually distinct copy of the same draft elsewhere in the release — not the conduct it recites. Under this wiki’s privacy rule, a charging instrument in this case names or numbers alleged victims throughout; this page reports which statutes the counts charge and does not repeat what any count alleges happened to a person.

What the cover page charges

The cover page lists seven federal statutes above the caption: 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2423(e), 2423(d), 1591(a)(2), 2422(b), 2423(b) and 1591(a)(1).1 Those seven are not seven counts; they are the statutes the indictment as a whole invokes, and the document goes on to charge dozens of separate counts under them, described below. Paragraph 1 states that Epstein employed three other defendants, all blacked out in this copy, one of them by an alias also blacked out, “to perform, among other things, services as personal assistants.”1 Background paragraphs recite Epstein’s ownership of two aircraft-holding corporations and, at length, the text of the Florida sexual-offense statutes the later counts cross-reference.56

The counts as drafted

Count 1, headed “(Conspiracy: 18 U.S.C. § 371),” charges Epstein and the three co-defendants with conspiring, from “at least as early as 2001” through “in or about October 2005,” to violate 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) by using a facility of interstate commerce to persuade, induce or entice individuals under 18 to engage in prostitution.78 Its own incorporation-by-reference clause is left unfinished: paragraph 28 reads “Paragraphs 1 through __ of this Indictment are re-alleged,” the paragraph number never filled in, where every later count’s equivalent clause reads “Paragraphs 1 through 32.”9 The count then pleads a numbered list of overt acts running from (1) to at least (229), a scale this page reports as a count and does not otherwise characterize.1011

Counts 2 through 4 follow directly: conspiracy to travel under § 2423(e), facilitating another’s unlawful travel under § 2423(d), and sex trafficking by receiving a benefit under § 1591(a)(2).1112 Counts 5 through 18 — fourteen separate counts — are each headed “Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b),” each charging a single instance of the same interstate-facility enticement offense over a different date range.1213 Counts 19 through 22 are pleaded together in a table headed “Travel to Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct: 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b),” with columns for count number, date, “MINOR(S) INVOLVED” and defendant; this page does not reproduce the table’s contents.14 Counts 23 through 32 follow in the same tabular form under “Sex Trafficking: 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1).”151617

The narrative text of this copy ends at Count 32. What follows are three forfeiture sections, and they describe a larger indictment than the one spelled out above. Forfeiture 1 attaches to “the violation alleged in Count 1” alone, and seeks “any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the violation,” with no property itemized, under 28 U.S.C. § 2461, 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 21 U.S.C. § 853.17 Forfeiture 2 attaches to “any of the violations alleged in Counts 2, 3, 5-50, 59, 60,” confirmed at the page image, and Forfeiture 3 attaches to “any of the violations alleged in Counts 4, 51-58.”1819 Together the three forfeiture paragraphs cover Counts 1 through 60 without gap. This copy, as scanned, never sets out the text of Counts 33 through 50 or 59 and 60; only the forfeiture sections’ count references show that the drafted indictment reached that far. This page reports that gap as a feature of the document and draws no conclusion about why the narrative counts stop at 32.

Unlike Forfeiture 1, Forfeiture 2 and Forfeiture 3 each itemize the same property: “[a] parcel of land located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida 33480” — Epstein’s Palm Beach residence, already recited in the background paragraphs as his own.1819 Forfeiture 2 cites 18 U.S.C. § 2253 as its authority; Forfeiture 3 cites 18 U.S.C. § 1594(b).2019

Unsigned, undated, unfiled

No date appears anywhere on this copy. The “Case No:” line is blank, the grand-jury foreperson’s signature line is blank, and the space for an Assistant United States Attorney’s signature is blank beneath a printed name that is itself blacked out; only “R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA / UNITED STATES ATTORNEY” is legible, over an unsigned line.234 A federal indictment becomes a charging document when a grand jury returns it as “A TRUE BILL” over the foreperson’s signature; that step did not happen on this copy, and nothing in this file states that it happened on any copy.

A second copy, and where it differs

A textually similar 56-page document, EFTA01703052, sits in the same production immediately before this one in the Bates sequence (EFTA_01703052 through EFTA_01703107).21 Its cover page carries the same caption, the same seven statutes and the same blank “Case No:” line, but a rubber stamp reading “DRAFT” in place of this copy’s handwritten “old Draft,” beside a separate handwritten notation this page could not read with enough confidence to transcribe.22 The two are not identical scans of one document: at the point in each copy’s narrative that reaches the same date (“the first week of October of 2005”), this copy’s Count 1 overt-acts list has reached number (229) while EFTA01703052’s has reached only (213), and EFTA01703052’s Count 2 opens by re-alleging “Paragraphs 1 through 19” where this copy’s Count 2 re-alleges “Paragraphs 1 through 32.”2324 The two documents are draft indictments of the same charges against the same four defendants, at two different stages of revision; this page does not determine which is earlier.

What the wider record shows, and what this page does not claim

The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) reported that the line Assistant U.S. Attorney on the investigation, A. Marie Villafaña, “submitted to her supervisors a draft 60-count indictment outlining charges against Epstein” in May 2007, attached to an 82-page prosecution memorandum dated May 1, 2007 and addressed to U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta and three named supervisors.2526 A separate FBI-produced case timeline in the release records the same event as “5/2007 - 60 count indictment drafted against Epstein.”27 OPR’s report also states that revision continued after that date: contemporaneous emails describe supervisors proposing changes to “the draft indictment” through May and July 2007, and OPR later refers to “the preparation of a revised draft indictment” among the steps the office took after the non-prosecution agreement was signed in September 2007, before Epstein’s guilty plea in June 2008.2829 Read against that account, this copy’s sixty-count forfeiture structure is consistent with the indictment OPR describes; this page does not identify EFTA01703108 or its duplicate as one particular dated version of it, since neither copy carries a date and OPR’s account describes more than one draft.

This wiki’s page on the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement sets out what followed: the office offered, on July 31, 2007, to end its investigation if Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges, and the agreement signed that September deferred prosecution “in this District” in favor of the state case, without ever filing the indictment described here. This wiki’s page on the defense’s submission to the Deputy Attorney General describes the campaign that followed, through June 2008, to keep it from ever being filed. Both pages, and the page on Marie Villafaña, carry the fuller narrative and their own citations to the OPR report; this page does not repeat it. Twelve years later, a different U.S. Attorney’s office obtained different, signed indictments against Epstein and against Ghislaine Maxwell; this wiki’s page on the SDNY prosecution memoranda describes those charging decisions, which this document is not part of and does not resemble beyond sharing some of the same statutes.

Limits of this page

This page does not identify any of the three co-defendants, whose names and one alias are blacked out throughout both copies of this draft. It does not identify any numbered Jane Doe or say what any count alleges she experienced. It does not read the overt-acts list (items (1) through (229) within paragraph 32) or the victim-attendance paragraphs (23-27) for their content, and reports only their existence and approximate scale. It does not resolve which of the two copies described here is chronologically earlier, or whether either is the specific May 1, 2007 draft OPR describes, and it does not identify the AUSA who drafted this copy from the document itself; the wider record’s identification of Marie Villafaña as the line prosecutor on the investigation is reported above from that record, not from this document, which withholds its own drafter’s name.

Footnotes

  1. EFTA01703108, p. 1 of 56 (caption, “Case No:” blank, seven statutes, “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, [redacted], and [redacted], Defendants.”; “INDICTMENT / The Grand Jury charges that:”; paragraph 1, “Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN employed defendants [redacted], [redacted], a/k/a “[redacted],” and [redacted] to perform, among other things, services as personal assistants.”). Read from the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703108 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  2. Same page, handwritten annotation top left reading “old Draft,” confirmed at 600 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703108 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  3. Same page, read at 400 dpi: the “FOREPERSON” signature line is blank. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703108 p.55. ↩ ↩2

  4. EFTA01703108, p. 56 of 56, read at 400 dpi: “R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA / UNITED STATES ATTORNEY” over a blank line, and a second block, printed name blacked out, over the printed line “ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY”; neither line is signed. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703108 p.56. ↩ ↩2

  5. EFTA01703108, p. 2 of 56 (paragraphs 2-7: JEGE, Inc. and Hyperion Air, Inc., the two aircraft-holding corporations; Florida Statutes § 794.05 and § 794.021 quoted). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703108 p.2. ↩

  6. EFTA01703108, pp. 3-5 of 56 (paragraphs 8-21, quoting Florida Statutes §§ 796.07, 796.01, 800.04 and 800.02). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703108 pp.3-5. ↩

  7. EFTA01703108, p. 6 of 56 (paragraph 22; paragraphs 23-27, not described on this page; “COUNT 1 / (Conspiracy: 18 U.S.C. § 371)”; paragraph 28, incorporation clause; paragraph 29, opening venue and date recital, “the defendants,”). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703108 p.6. ↩

  8. EFTA01703108, p. 7 of 56 (paragraph 29 continues: “did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate and agree with each other and with others known and unknown to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, and entice individuals who had not attained the age of 18 years to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b).”). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703108 p.7. ↩

  9. Same page, paragraph 28, read at 400 dpi: “Paragraphs 1 through __ of this Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein,” the blank left unfilled. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703108 p.6. ↩

  10. EFTA01703108, p. 9 of 56 (“Overt Acts” heading, paragraph 32, overt act (1)). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703108 p.9. ↩

  11. EFTA01703108, p. 38 of 56 (overt act (229), the last in this list; “All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and 2.”; “COUNT 2 / (Conspiracy to Travel: 18 U.S.C. § 2423(e)),” paragraphs 33-34). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703108 p.38. ↩ ↩2

  12. EFTA01703108, p. 39 of 56 (“COUNT 3 / (Facilitation of Unlawful Travel of Another: 18 U.S.C. § 2423(d)),” paragraphs 35-36; “COUNT 4 / (Sex Trafficking: 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(2)),” paragraph 37). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703108 p.39. ↩ ↩2

  13. EFTA01703108, p. 48 of 56 (“COUNT 18 / (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)),” the last of the individually numbered enticement counts before the tabular counts begin). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703108 p.48. ↩

  14. EFTA01703108, p. 49 of 56 (“COUNTS 19 THROUGH 22 / (Travel to Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct: 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)),” table headed “COUNT / DATE(S) / MINOR(S) INVOLVED / DEFENDANT(S)”; contents not reproduced on this page). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703108 p.49. ↩

  15. EFTA01703108, p. 50 of 56 (table for Counts 19-22 concludes; “All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2423(b) and 2.”; “COUNTS 23 THROUGH 32 / (Sex Trafficking: 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1))” heading and paragraphs 69-70; contents of the table itself not reproduced on this page). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703108 p.50. ↩

  16. EFTA01703108, p. 51 of 56 (table rows for Counts 23 through 31; contents not reproduced on this page). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703108 p.51. ↩

  17. EFTA01703108, p. 52 of 56, read at 400 dpi (table concludes at Count 32; “All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2.”; “FORFEITURE 1,” “[u]pon conviction of the violation alleged in Count 1 of this indictment… shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the violation. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461; Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C); and Title 21, United States Code, Section 853.”). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703108 p.52. ↩ ↩2

  18. EFTA01703108, p. 53 of 56, read at 400 dpi: “FORFEITURE 2 / Upon conviction of any of the violations alleged in Counts 2, 3, 5-50, 59, 60, of this indictment… shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, constituting or traceable to gross profits or other proceeds obtained from such offense… including but not limited to the following: a. A parcel of land located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida 33480…” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703108 p.53. ↩ ↩2

  19. EFTA01703108, p. 55 of 56 (“Upon conviction of any of the violations alleged in Counts 4, 51-58, of this indictment”; authority 18 U.S.C. § 1594(b); “A TRUE BILL” over a blank “FOREPERSON” line). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703108 p.55. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  20. EFTA01703108, p. 54 of 56, read at 400 dpi: property description continues from p.53, then “Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2253.” and, after the due-diligence subparagraphs, “it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2253(o), to seek forfeiture of any other property… Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2253.”; “FORFEITURE 3” heading begins. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703108 p.54. ↩

  21. Documents table of the corpus: EFTA01703052 (56 pages, Bates EFTA_01703052 through EFTA_01703107) is the entry immediately preceding EFTA01703108 (56 pages, Bates EFTA_01703108 through EFTA_01703163) in the identifier sequence, with no other document between them. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703052 ↩

  22. EFTA01703052, p. 1 of 56, read at 600 dpi: same caption and seven statutes as EFTA01703108 p.1; a rubber-stamped “DRAFT” beside a separate handwritten notation this page did not resolve legibly enough to transcribe. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703052 p.1. ↩

  23. EFTA01703108, p. 38 of 56, overt act (229) (cited above at 11), compared with EFTA01703052, p. 38 of 56 by position, overt acts (212)-(213), both reaching the same narrative point, “the first week of October of 2005.” EFTA01703052 was scanned out of order — it carries a handwritten “Out of order” annotation — so its own printed page numbers run three behind their position in the file; the number printed at the foot of this page reads “35.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703052 p.38. ↩

  24. EFTA01703052, p. 39 of 56 by position (printed page number “36,” same three-page offset as the preceding note): “COUNT 2 / (Conspiracy to Travel: 18 U.S.C. § 2423(e)) / 24. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this indictment are re-alleged…” compared with EFTA01703108 p.38 (cited above at 11), “Paragraphs 1 through 32.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01703052 p.39. ↩

  25. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, Investigation into the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida’s Resolution of Its 2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation, Executive Summary, November 2020: “In May 2007, the AUSA submitted to her supervisors a draft 60-count indictment outlining charges against Epstein.” https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 p.4. ↩

  26. OPR Report, filed as Government Exhibit 3, Document 204-3 in United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), April 16, 2021, narrative p. 25: “Villafaña drafted an 82-page prosecution memorandum directed to Acosta, Sloman, Menchel…, Lourie, and her immediate supervisor, dated May 1, 2007, supporting a proposed 60-count indictment that charged Epstein with various federal crimes relating to sexual conduct with and trafficking of minors.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02830776 p.51. ↩

  27. FBI-produced case summary, “Jeffrey Epstein Investigations,” timeline slide: “5/2007 - 60 count indictment drafted against Epstein.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01656198 p.3. ↩

  28. OPR Report, narrative p. 29: “Villafaña told OPR that although Lourie proposed some changes to the draft indictment, at that point no one had told her that the evidence was insufficient…” https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.55. And narrative p. 48, on a July 26, 2007 email in which Villafaña “informed Menchel that she was preparing a new draft indictment containing revisions he had suggested.” https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 p.74. ↩

  29. As cited on the Marie Villafaña page, OPR Report narrative p. 263, describing “the preparation of a revised draft indictment” among the investigative steps taken between the September 2007 agreement and Epstein’s June 2008 guilty plea. ↩

Backlinks