2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) U.S. Government Exhibit 62

PostedDecember 6, 2025

UpdatedSeptember 9, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

On September 24, 2007, federal prosecutors possessed a proposed 60-count indictment against Jeffrey Epstein. Their investigation had identified additional survivors, examined conduct spanning several years, and considered federal conspiracy, enticement, interstate-travel, and sex-trafficking charges.

No federal indictment followed.

Instead, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida signed a non-prosecution agreement that moved the case into Florida state court, promised Epstein protection from federal prosecution in that district, suspended the federal grand-jury investigation, and extended non-prosecution protection to four named women and “any potential co-conspirators.” The agreement also said the parties anticipated that it would not become part of any public record.

The survivors whose cases supplied the agreement’s factual foundation were not told before it was signed.

Years later, the agreement entered the public federal docket as Exhibit 62 in the survivors’ Crime Victims’ Rights Act litigation. Its significance reaches far beyond Epstein’s unusually lenient punishment. Exhibit 62 records the moment a substantial federal investigation was converted into a confidential bargain that protected not only its principal target but an open-ended category of other people.

Document at a glance

Document: Non-Prosecution Agreement and addendum

Agreement date: September 24, 2007

Addendum: Dated in the record to October 2007

Federal office: U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida

Federal investigation period described in the NPA: Approximately 2001 through September 2007

Later docket designation: Exhibit 62, Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.)

Exhibit filing: Document 361-62, filed February 10, 2016

Epstein-data file: EFTA00095871, including the NPA and addendum

Related filing: Document 361, the survivors’ statement of undisputed facts

Why Exhibit 62 matters

Exhibit 62 is not simply a plea bargain. Epstein did not plead guilty to a federal offense, and no federal judge reviewed the bargain before it shut down the Southern District of Florida investigation. It was a pre-charge agreement between Epstein and a federal prosecutor’s office, tied to guilty pleas that would occur in a separate state court.

The bargain accomplished four consequential things at once:

It replaced a contemplated federal prosecution with two state convictions.
It restricted any later federal case in the Southern District of Florida arising from the FBI, U.S. Attorney’s Office, or federal grand-jury investigations.
It promised non-prosecution to named and unnamed potential co-conspirators if Epstein completed the agreement.
It kept the survivors outside the negotiations and contemplated keeping the agreement outside the public record.

The agreement’s civil-payment provisions are also important. They were not criminal restitution orders. They created a route through which specifically identified survivors could bring civil claims under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, subject to conditions drafted into Epstein’s bargain with the government.

The federal case that existed before the deal

The case began with the Palm Beach Police Department’s 2005 investigation after the family of a 14-year-old girl reported that Epstein had paid her for a massage. Police found evidence that assistants recruited girls to give Epstein massages and that many encounters became sexual. Dissatisfied with the state prosecution, Palm Beach police referred the matter to the FBI.

According to the Justice Department’s 2020 Office of Professional Responsibility executive summary, an Assistant U.S. Attorney and two FBI agents developed a federal case and identified additional survivors. In May 2007, the prosecutor submitted a proposed 60-count federal indictment and a detailed prosecution memorandum to her supervisors.

The NPA itself identifies five categories of federal conduct investigated from approximately 2001 through September 2007:

Conspiracy to use interstate or foreign commerce to persuade, induce, or entice minors to engage in prostitution, under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2422(b).
Conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce to engage in illicit sexual conduct with minors, under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(e).
Substantive enticement offenses under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422(b) and 2.
Interstate travel to engage in illicit sexual conduct with minors under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b).
Recruiting, enticing, or obtaining a person under 18 for a commercial sex act, under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1) and 2.

Those were not convictions, and the proposed 60-count indictment was never filed. They were, however, the potential federal offenses the government was investigating and the very exposure the NPA was designed to resolve.

The scale of the known survivor evidence also matters. In the later CVRA litigation, the survivors’ 2016 statement of facts cited a September 24, 2007 email in which the line prosecutor wrote, “I have compiled a list of 34 confirmed minors.” That figure comes from the survivors’ evidentiary filing and the contemporaneous government communication it cites; it should not be confused with a criminal verdict or a final judicial count of all survivors.

From a proposed indictment to a state-based resolution

The Justice Department’s OPR chronology shows how sharply the case changed.

At a July 31, 2007 meeting, the U.S. Attorney’s Office offered to end its federal investigation if Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges, served at least two years, registered as a sex offender, and accepted a mechanism for survivors to seek money damages. Further negotiations reduced the incarceration recommendation in the final NPA to 18 months in county jail, followed by 12 months of community control.

Epstein’s defense team included prominent lawyers and pursued the matter through extensive meetings, correspondence, and later appeals to senior Justice Department officials. The agreement was executed on September 24, 2007 under the authority of U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta. Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafaña negotiated and signed for the office. Epstein and defense lawyers Gerald Lefcourt and Lilly Ann Sanchez signed the agreement in the versions preserved in the record.

The NPA states that Epstein sought to resolve his state and federal criminal liability “globally.” But its operative federal promise was expressly connected to prosecution “in this District,” meaning the Southern District of Florida. That geographic language later became decisive when Ghislaine Maxwell tried to use the agreement against prosecutors in New York.

What the government agreed not to prosecute

The NPA promised that, after Epstein timely fulfilled all its conditions, no prosecution would be instituted in the Southern District of Florida for:

The federal offenses described on the first two pages of the agreement.
Other offenses that had been the subject of the joint FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office investigation.
Offenses arising from the federal grand-jury investigation.

Any charges already brought would be dismissed. Because no federal indictment had been filed, the agreement prevented the contemplated case from reaching a federal courtroom in the first place.

The promise was conditional. If the U.S. Attorney determined from reliable evidence that Epstein willfully breached the agreement, the office could notify him and initiate a federal prosecution within the specified time limits. Epstein waived speedy-trial, limitations, and grand-jury-indictment defenses for a prosecution revived after a breach.

This was therefore not an unconditional declaration of innocence. It was an enforceable exchange: Epstein would perform the state-court and civil-claim conditions, and federal prosecutors in South Florida would close the route to charges covered by the agreement.

The 13 numbered terms

The seven-page NPA contains 13 numbered terms. Their full structure is essential to understanding what each side received.

Term	Operative requirement
1	Epstein would plead guilty, not nolo contendere, to the pending Palm Beach County solicitation indictment and to an additional state information charging an offense requiring sex-offender registration. The NPA cites Florida Statutes §§ 796.07 and 796.03.
2	Epstein would make a binding recommendation for a 30-month package: 12 months plus 6 months in county jail, served consecutively, followed by 12 months of community control.
3	The bargain depended on a Florida circuit judge accepting and imposing the agreed sentence.
4	Epstein and the State Attorney’s Office remained free to recommend additional charges, probation, or incarceration.
5	Epstein waived challenges to the additional state information and waived an appeal unless the sentence exceeded the agreed package.
6	Epstein had to give the U.S. Attorney’s Office copies of proposed agreements with state prosecutors before entering them.
7	After signing and sentencing, the United States would give Epstein’s lawyers a list of people it had identified as victims under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. The government, subject to Epstein counsel’s good-faith approval, would select a lawyer for those individuals; Epstein would pay that lawyer. His counsel could contact the identified people through the representative.
8	A listed survivor choosing to sue exclusively under § 2255 would receive Epstein’s waiver of jurisdiction, liability, and agreed damages defenses, but would have to waive other state, federal, and common-law damages claims. The NPA said those waivers were not admissions of civil or criminal liability.
9	Epstein made no admission and retained defenses regarding anyone not on the government’s list.
10	Outside the exclusive § 2255 process in Term 8, the NPA, settlements, and waivers could not be used as admissions or evidence of liability, whether or not a person appeared on the list.
11	Epstein would use his best efforts to plead and be sentenced by October 26, 2007. The federal government did not object to self-reporting as late as January 4, 2008. In reality, the plea did not occur until June 30, 2008.
12	Epstein would receive only the gain-time opportunities available to other Florida inmates and, if asked, would account for the credits he earned.
13	The parties anticipated that the NPA would not become part of a public record. If a FOIA request or compulsory process sought it, the United States would notify Epstein before disclosure.

The agreement did not require Epstein to become a conventional cooperating witness, provide testimony against others, or help dismantle a trafficking network. It required performance of the state plea, sentence, civil-claim, and procedural terms.

The addendum and Epstein’s role in the survivors’ legal representation

Exhibit 62 includes an addendum modifying Term 7. The addendum allowed the government to assign selection of the survivors’ attorney representative to an independent third party. Both the United States and Epstein retained the right to make good-faith objections before the representative was chosen.

The parties would jointly prepare a short submission explaining the representative’s role. Epstein would pay the representative’s ordinary hourly fees while potential settlements were considered. If the representative filed contested litigation under § 2255 or pursued another contested remedy, Epstein’s special contractual obligation to pay that lawyer would end, apart from any fees or costs a statute or court might otherwise impose.

This arrangement offered a path to compensation, but it also placed Epstein and his lawyers inside the mechanism designed to represent the people identified as his victims. The government would turn the survivor list over to Epstein’s attorneys only after he signed the agreement and was sentenced. His counsel had approval rights concerning the representative and could communicate with survivors through that person.

The en banc Eleventh Circuit later described the structure as “an odd set-up” that appeared likely designed to resolve victim lawsuits quickly and quietly. See In re Wild, 994 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2021).

The open-ended co-conspirator promise

The most extraordinary provision appears after the 13 numbered terms. If Epstein completed the agreement, the United States promised not to institute criminal charges against:

“any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova.”

The words “including but not limited to” made the protected category broader than the four named women. The agreement did not identify every person who might qualify, define a separate process for determining who was covered, or require an unnamed beneficiary to sign the NPA.

The provision also suspended the federal grand-jury investigation and placed pending grand-jury subpoenas in abeyance. The parties agreed to preserve relevant evidence while the agreement remained conditional. Once Epstein successfully completed its terms, the outstanding subpoenas would be treated as withdrawn.

Naming a person in this clause did not itself prove that person committed a crime. None of the four women was convicted through the Florida investigation, and an immunity provision is not a judicial finding of guilt. What the clause conclusively establishes is that the federal office agreed to forgo covered South Florida charges against named and unnamed potential co-conspirators as part of Epstein’s bargain.

In its later review, OPR called the breadth of the provision troubling. It found that prosecutors had stopped significant investigative work and lacked enough information to know with reasonable certainty whether other people should be held accountable. OPR also observed that prosecutors rarely promise not to prosecute unidentified third parties.

The secrecy provision and the survivors kept outside the room

Term 13 did not use the word “secret,” but its practical direction was plain: the parties anticipated that the agreement would not enter any public record, and Epstein would receive advance notice if FOIA or compulsory legal process forced disclosure.

The surrounding communications make the provision more consequential. The survivors’ 2016 filing quotes Epstein attorney Jay Lefkowitz writing to Villafaña on the day of execution: “Please do whatever you can to keep this from becoming public.” The same evidentiary record shows prosecutors and defense counsel discussing how and when survivors would be informed.

The Justice Department’s OPR review confirms the central undisputed fact: survivors were neither informed nor consulted about the state-based resolution or the NPA before it was signed. For approximately nine months, from execution on September 24, 2007 until Epstein’s June 30, 2008 state plea, they were not told that an agreement had already resolved the federal case. They obtained a copy only later, pursuant to a court order.

In January 2008, one survivor met with FBI agents and prosecutors and provided additional information. The executed NPA was still not disclosed to her. Government communications sent after execution continued to describe the matter as under investigation. The district court later found that these messages misled survivors into believing a federal prosecution remained possible.

OPR reached a narrower professional-discipline conclusion. It found that the standard form letters were not literally false because investigators continued work in case Epstein breached the still-conditional agreement. OPR nevertheless concluded that the government’s lack of transparency and inconsistent messages confused and mistreated survivors, undermined public confidence, and failed to show the forthrightness and sensitivity the Department expected.

Those two conclusions must be reported separately: the district court found a statutory rights violation in 2019, while OPR later found poor judgment and unacceptable treatment but not intentional or reckless professional misconduct under its disciplinary standard.

The state pleas and the punishment Epstein actually served

Epstein did not meet the NPA’s original October 2007 plea deadline. For nine months his lawyers continued contesting the agreement’s meaning and sought review from senior Justice Department officials. The Office of the Deputy Attorney General declined to intervene on June 23, 2008.

On June 30, 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty in Palm Beach County Circuit Court to felony solicitation of prostitution and procurement of a person under 18 for prostitution. The court imposed consecutive jail terms of 12 and 6 months, followed by 12 months of community control, matching the NPA’s 30-month package. He registered as a sex offender.

The paper sentence and lived sentence were different. Epstein served at a minimum-security Palm Beach County facility. Beginning in October 2008, the sheriff permitted him to leave jail for as much as 12 hours a day, six days a week, under a work-release arrangement connected to the Florida Science Foundation, an entity he had recently created and housed at an attorney’s office. With gain-time credit, he served less than 13 months before beginning home detention on July 22, 2009.

The work-release decision was made by local authorities, not written into the federal NPA. It should not be misdescribed as a benefit expressly promised by Exhibit 62. The agreement did, however, channel the case into the county-jail sentence within which that extraordinary release arrangement became possible.

How the NPA became Exhibit 62

On July 7, 2008, a survivor then identified as Jane Doe 1 filed an emergency petition under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. She sought an order requiring federal prosecutors to confer with her before resolving the case. At that point, she did not know the NPA had already been signed.

The action became Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM in the Southern District of Florida. The government disclosed the agreement’s existence in responding to the petition, but initially produced it only after a court order and subject to a protective order. A copy was also filed under seal in state court. Following litigation by survivors and news organizations, a Florida judge ordered the state-court copy released in September 2009.

The federal CVRA litigation continued for more than a decade. On February 10, 2016, the survivors filed a 57-page statement of undisputed facts as Document 361, supported by more than 100 exhibits. The executed NPA and addendum were attached as Document 361-62: Exhibit 62. The same 15-page exhibit was later filed in Epstein’s 2019 New York criminal case as an attachment to his bail submission.

The cleanest research copy is EFTA00095871 on epstein-data. A text-searchable docket reproduction is also available as Document 6-1 in United States v. Epstein.

The Crime Victims’ Rights Act litigation

The CVRA gives federal crime victims rights that include reasonable protection, notice of public proceedings, the reasonable right to confer with the government’s attorney, fairness, dignity, and privacy. The Epstein litigation raised a foundational question: can prosecutors avoid judicial enforcement of those rights by making a secret non-prosecution deal before filing a criminal charge?

The case generated several major decisions:

In Doe v. United States, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011), the district court held in this litigation that CVRA protections could apply before federal charges were filed.
In Doe v. United States, 950 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2013), the court addressed the survivors’ standing and ability to challenge the government’s handling of the NPA.
In Doe No. 1 v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed an order requiring disclosure of plea-negotiation correspondence, rejecting Epstein and his lawyers’ privilege objections.
On February 21, 2019, Judge Kenneth A. Marra granted partial summary judgment in Doe 1 v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201. He held that the government violated the CVRA by failing to confer with survivors before entering the NPA. He also found that post-agreement letters describing an ongoing investigation misled them into believing federal prosecution remained possible.
After Epstein died in August 2019, the district court held that the requested remedies, including rescission of the NPA, were unavailable or moot and closed the case. See Doe 1 v. United States, 411 F. Supp. 3d 1321 (S.D. Fla. 2019).

The 2019 ruling was a major recognition of government failure, but it did not end the legal dispute.

The Eleventh Circuit’s limit on the 2019 ruling

Courtney Wild, formerly Jane Doe 1, sought review in the Eleventh Circuit. A panel denied relief in In re Courtney Wild, 955 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2020). The full court then reheard the case.

In In re Wild, 994 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2021) (en banc), the court held that the CVRA does not create a private right of action allowing a survivor to seek judicial enforcement outside an existing criminal proceeding. Because South Florida prosecutors had never filed a federal complaint, information, or indictment against Epstein, no federal criminal case existed in which Wild could enforce the statute.

The en banc court did not declare the prosecutors’ conduct admirable or transparent. Its majority described the facts as a “tale of national disgrace.” Its holding was about the judicial remedy Congress authorized. The result exposed the structural problem at the center of the case: prosecutors’ decision not to file charges was also what prevented survivors from invoking the CVRA in a pending criminal case.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Wild’s petition for review on February 22, 2022. The complete proceedings are available in Supreme Court docket No. 21-351.

It is therefore inaccurate to write only that “courts found the NPA illegal.” A district court found that prosecutors violated the CVRA in negotiating and concealing it without conferring with survivors. The later en banc appellate decision held that the CVRA supplied no standalone pre-charge action through which Wild could obtain judicial enforcement. No court rescinded the agreement.

The Justice Department’s professional-responsibility review

The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility separately investigated the conduct of Acosta, Villafaña, and three supervisors. Its November 2020 executive summary reached conclusions that were sharply critical but narrower than the district court’s CVRA ruling.

OPR found:

Acosta made the pivotal decision to use a state-based resolution, participated in drafting, approved the NPA with knowledge of its terms, and accepted responsibility for it.
OPR found no evidence that bribery, Epstein’s wealth, social status, associations, favoritism, or another impermissible consideration caused the decision.
The prosecutors did not commit professional misconduct under OPR’s standard, which required an intentional or reckless violation of a clear and unambiguous rule.
Acosta nevertheless exercised poor judgment. OPR called the NPA a flawed mechanism, found that the investigation ended before significant steps were completed, and criticized several unusual and problematic provisions.
Acosta also exercised poor judgment by failing to ensure survivors were told about the state plea hearing.
The survivors were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the Department.

OPR’s finding of no professional misconduct was not a finding that the NPA was wise, fair, or harmless. It reflected OPR’s demanding disciplinary definition and its conclusion that the governing pre-charge CVRA rule was not clear and unambiguous in 2007.

Why the NPA did not stop the 2019 New York prosecution

In July 2019, the Southern District of New York charged Epstein with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy. The indictment alleged conduct in New York and Florida from 2002 through 2005. Epstein argued that the Florida NPA affected the new case, and his lawyers filed the agreement as Document 6-1 in the New York docket.

New York prosecutors maintained that the South Florida office had not bound other federal districts. That position rested on the agreement’s repeated references to prosecution “in this District,” its execution by South Florida officials, and Justice Department rules requiring approval before one district binds another.

Epstein died before the New York court could try the charges or issue a final merits ruling on his guilt. The indictment was dismissed after his death. The 2019 case therefore did not produce a verdict against him, but it returned the NPA to federal court and made its geographic scope a live legal issue.

The case docket is available at United States v. Epstein, No. 1:19-cr-00490 (S.D.N.Y.).

Maxwell’s failed attempt to claim the agreement

The co-conspirator clause became central again after federal prosecutors in New York charged Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell argued that she was a potential Epstein co-conspirator and that the promise made by “the United States” barred her prosecution even though the NPA did not name her.

The district court rejected the argument. After Maxwell’s conviction, the Second Circuit affirmed in United States v. Maxwell, 118 F.4th 256 (2d Cir. 2024). The court held that the NPA did not bind the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. Its text, signatories, negotiating record, and South Florida language did not affirmatively establish a nationwide promise.

The Second Circuit therefore did not decide that the co-conspirator provision was meaningless. It held that the promise did not reach the New York prosecuting office. Within the Southern District of Florida and within the offenses covered by that investigation, the clause remains one of the agreement’s most consequential provisions.

Maxwell asked the Supreme Court to review the geographic-scope question. The Court denied certiorari on October 6, 2025, leaving the Second Circuit decision in place. See Maxwell v. United States, Supreme Court docket No. 24-1073.

What Exhibit 62 proves, and what it does not

Established by the document and official record

Federal authorities investigated potential conspiracy, enticement, interstate-travel, and sex-trafficking offenses involving minors.
The federal prosecutor prepared a proposed 60-count indictment, but it was never filed.
The NPA was executed on September 24, 2007 and channeled the case into two Florida state pleas.
The final recommendation consisted of 18 months in county jail and 12 months of community control.
Federal prosecutors promised not to bring covered charges in the Southern District of Florida if Epstein completed the agreement.
The agreement protected Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, Nadia Marcinkova, and an undefined class of other potential co-conspirators from covered South Florida charges.
It suspended the federal grand-jury investigation and held subpoenas in abeyance.
It anticipated remaining outside the public record and required notice to Epstein before compelled disclosure.
Survivors were not informed or consulted before execution.
Epstein ultimately served less than 13 months and received extensive work release.

Not established merely by Exhibit 62

The agreement does not prove every investigated allegation.
A person’s inclusion in the co-conspirator clause is not a conviction or judicial finding of criminal conduct.
The open-ended language does not identify every person who might have benefited.
Exhibit 62 does not prove bribery, political interference, or a particular hidden motive.
The agreement does not grant nationwide immunity as a matter of settled law; the Second Circuit held that it did not bind the Southern District of New York.
The district court’s CVRA ruling did not rescind the NPA, and later appellate litigation foreclosed the standalone pre-charge remedy Wild sought.

The lasting significance

The most revealing feature of Exhibit 62 is not a single clause. It is the distribution of power recorded across the document.

Epstein received advance knowledge of the government’s position, months of negotiation, a state-court path, a defined county-jail recommendation, protection against a South Florida federal case, a process for notice before disclosure, and non-prosecution protection for potential co-conspirators. His lawyers received a role in approving the representative who would approach identified survivors.

The survivors received no opportunity to confer before the federal case was surrendered. They learned only after the bargain had been signed, the federal grand jury had been suspended, and the state resolution was effectively in place. When they spent more than a decade seeking a remedy, the courts ultimately held that the absence of the very federal prosecution they had been excluded from also limited their ability to enforce their rights.

That is why the NPA remains a defining document in the Epstein record. It is a primary-source account of how a federal investigation can disappear before public charging, how an agreement can distribute protection to people who never sign it, and how secrecy at the pre-charge stage can leave survivors with a recognized wrong but no effective judicial remedy.

Primary documents and court record

Editorial note

This article distinguishes among the text of the NPA, allegations and evidence submitted by survivors, district-court findings, appellate holdings, and the Justice Department’s professional-responsibility conclusions. “Victim” is used where it is the statutory or documentary term; “survivor” is used in narrative discussion. Inclusion in an investigative file, allegation, or immunity clause is not proof of criminal guilt.

Official Document

Below is the original 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida. This file is provided for reference, research, and documentation purposes.

Jeffrey-Epstein-non-prosecution-agreement Download

Federal Court Cases