What was the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement?

The Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was a deal reached in September 2007 between the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team. Under its terms, Epstein pleaded guilty to two state prostitution charges instead of facing federal sex trafficking charges. The NPA also granted immunity to unnamed 'potential co-conspirators,' according to the agreement itself.

Who negotiated the Epstein plea deal?

On the government side, the NPA was negotiated by then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and members of his office, according to court records. Epstein's defense team included attorneys Alan Dershowitz, Kenneth Starr, Jay Lefkowitz, and Gerald Weinberg, according to court filings and reporting by the Miami Herald.

What were the exact terms of the NPA?

According to the agreement, the key terms were: Epstein would plead guilty to one count of solicitation of prostitution and one count of procurement of minors for prostitution under Florida state law; he would register as a sex offender; he would serve 18 months in county jail; and federal prosecutors would not bring charges against Epstein or any 'potential co-conspirators' identified during the investigation.

What was the CVRA ruling?

On February 21, 2019, Judge Kenneth Marra of the Southern District of Florida ruled that the NPA violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) because federal prosecutors failed to inform identified victims of the plea negotiations, as required by law. The ruling held that victims' statutory rights had been violated, though the judge noted the appropriate remedy was unclear.

Why did Alexander Acosta resign?

Alexander Acosta resigned as U.S. Secretary of Labor on July 12, 2019, following renewed scrutiny of his role in negotiating the Epstein NPA when he served as U.S. Attorney. The resignation came days after Epstein's federal arrest in New York and amid growing political pressure, according to the Associated Press.

What did the DOJ review find about the NPA?

The DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) completed its review in November 2020 and concluded that prosecutors involved in the NPA exercised 'poor judgment' but did not commit professional misconduct, according to the DOJ. This finding was widely criticized by victims' advocates and legal commentators.

Did the NPA protect Epstein's co-conspirators?

Yes. According to the text of the agreement, the NPA included a provision granting immunity to unnamed 'potential co-conspirators' who had been identified during the federal investigation. This clause has been one of the most criticized aspects of the deal, as it shielded individuals who may have participated in or facilitated the alleged criminal conduct.

The Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement: The Deal That Changed Everything

Overview

The 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida and Jeffrey Epstein is one of the most controversial plea deals in American legal history. It allowed a man under federal investigation for sex trafficking of minors to plead guilty to state prostitution charges, serve a lenient jail sentence with generous work-release privileges, and — most critically — secured immunity for unnamed co-conspirators.

The NPA shaped every subsequent chapter of the Epstein story. Its terms directly influenced the 2019 CVRA ruling, Alexander Acosta's resignation, the SDNY's decision to bring new federal charges, and the ongoing public demand for accountability. This page documents the full history of the agreement based on court records and official sources.

For a detailed narrative explainer, see our 2007 plea deal analysis. For the broader legal context, see the legal proceedings hub.

The Investigation That Led to the NPA (2005-2007)

Palm Beach Police Investigation (2005-2006)

The investigation began in March 2005 when a parent reported to the Palm Beach Police Department that her 14-year-old daughter had been taken to Epstein's Palm Beach estate on El Brillo Way, according to the police report documented in the Miami Herald's "Perversion of Justice" series. Detective Joseph Recarey led the investigation and eventually identified dozens of potential victims who described similar patterns of being recruited and brought to the residence, according to the police report.

The Palm Beach Police Department referred the case to the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida in 2006, according to FBI records released under FOIA.

FBI Investigation and Federal Grand Jury

According to FBI records and reporting by the Miami Herald, the FBI conducted an investigation that corroborated and expanded upon the Palm Beach police findings. A federal grand jury was convened, and the investigation identified at least 36 victims, according to court filings. The case appeared headed for a multi-count federal indictment on sex trafficking charges.

For the full investigation timeline from Palm Beach through the 2019 arrest, see our comprehensive chronology.

The Negotiation (2006-2007)

Epstein's Defense Team

Epstein assembled one of the most formidable legal defense teams in the country. According to court filings and the Miami Herald's investigation, his attorneys included:

Alan Dershowitz — Harvard Law professor and prominent defense attorney
Kenneth Starr — Former U.S. Solicitor General and Whitewater independent counsel
Jay Lefkowitz — Former Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea
Gerald Weinberg — Former federal prosecutor and experienced defense attorney

According to the Miami Herald's reporting, Epstein's defense team engaged in aggressive negotiations with the U.S. Attorney's Office, including direct outreach to then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta. For analysis of the prosecution's decisions, see The Prosecutors Who Let Epstein Go.

Alexander Acosta and the U.S. Attorney's Office

Alexander Acosta served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida from 2005 to 2009, according to DOJ records. According to the Miami Herald's investigation and subsequent congressional testimony, Acosta met with Epstein's attorneys during the plea negotiations — a practice that was unusual for a U.S. Attorney to engage in personally at that stage of a case, according to legal commentators.

Acosta later stated that he was told Epstein "belonged to intelligence" and to "leave it alone," according to reporting by the Daily Beast. Acosta has not confirmed this characterization. For analysis of the intelligence dimension, see our intelligence connections explainer.

The Terms of the NPA

The NPA was finalized in September 2007, according to the agreement document. Its key provisions, as documented in the agreement itself, were:

State Guilty Plea

Epstein agreed to plead guilty to one count of solicitation of prostitution and one count of procurement of minors for prostitution under Florida state law, according to the NPA. These were significantly less serious charges than the federal sex trafficking counts that had been under consideration by the grand jury.

Sentence

Under the state plea, Epstein was sentenced to 18 months in the Palm Beach County Stockade, according to Florida court records. He ultimately served approximately 13 months.

Work Release

Epstein was granted work-release privileges that allowed him to leave the county stockade for up to 12 hours per day, six days per week, to work at a nominally established office in West Palm Beach, according to Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office records documented by the Miami Herald. This arrangement was widely criticized as extraordinarily lenient.

Sex Offender Registration

Epstein was required to register as a sex offender, according to the NPA terms.

Co-Conspirator Immunity

The most controversial provision of the NPA granted immunity from federal prosecution to unnamed "potential co-conspirators" who had been identified during the investigation, according to the text of the agreement. This clause effectively shielded other individuals who may have participated in or facilitated the alleged criminal conduct, and it has been one of the most criticized aspects of the deal.

Victim Notification — The Fatal Omission

Critically, prosecutors did not inform identified victims of the plea negotiations before finalizing the NPA, according to Judge Marra's subsequent ruling. This omission would later prove to be the legal basis for overturning the agreement's protections.

The CVRA Challenge (2008-2019)

Filing and Legal Battle

In 2008, attorneys representing two of Epstein's identified victims filed suit under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), arguing that the NPA violated their statutory right to be informed of and heard during plea negotiations, according to the court docket (Case No. 08-cv-80736, S.D. Florida).

The CVRA case proceeded through more than a decade of litigation, during which the government argued that the NPA was lawful and that victim notification was not required under the circumstances, according to court filings.

Judge Marra's Ruling (February 21, 2019)

On February 21, 2019, Judge Kenneth Marra issued a landmark ruling holding that the NPA had violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act, according to the court's opinion. The ruling found that:

Federal prosecutors had a statutory obligation to inform identified victims of the plea negotiations, per the CVRA
Prosecutors "not only failed to notify the victims, but they actively concealed the existence of the NPA," according to the opinion
The victims' rights under the CVRA had been violated

However, Judge Marra noted that determining the appropriate remedy was "complicated," and the ruling did not automatically void the NPA's terms. The case was referred to mediation, according to court records.

The ruling nonetheless had enormous practical consequences. Coming just months before Epstein's July 2019 arrest by the SDNY, it contributed to the political and legal environment that made renewed prosecution possible.

The DOJ OPR Review (2020)

Following the CVRA ruling and Epstein's death, the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) conducted a formal review of the NPA, according to the DOJ. The review examined whether prosecutors had committed professional misconduct in negotiating and executing the agreement.

The OPR's findings, released in November 2020, concluded that prosecutors exercised "poor judgment" in several aspects of the NPA negotiation and execution, but that their conduct did not rise to the level of professional misconduct, according to the DOJ report.

This conclusion was widely criticized. Victims' advocates argued that the finding understated the severity of the prosecutors' failures, according to the Miami Herald. Legal commentators noted the gap between acknowledging "poor judgment" and finding no professional consequences, according to reporting by the New York Times.

Acosta's Resignation (July 2019)

Alexander Acosta had been appointed U.S. Secretary of Labor in 2017. Following Epstein's arrest in New York on July 6, 2019, Acosta faced intense scrutiny over his role in the NPA. On July 12, 2019, Acosta resigned from the cabinet, according to the Associated Press. In his resignation statement, Acosta maintained that the NPA had been the best available outcome at the time, a characterization disputed by victim advocates and the subsequent CVRA ruling.

Lasting Impact

The NPA's consequences extend far beyond the immediate case:

Delayed justice for victims: The NPA prevented federal prosecution for over a decade, during which time Epstein allegedly continued to commit offenses, according to the 2019 SDNY indictment, which alleged conduct continuing beyond the NPA period.

Co-conspirator protection: The immunity clause shielded unnamed individuals from federal prosecution. While the SDNY argued that the NPA did not bind their office (as it was negotiated by the Southern District of Florida), the provision remains one of the most controversial aspects of the deal.

CVRA precedent: Judge Marra's ruling established important precedent regarding victim notification requirements in plea negotiations, according to legal analysts.

Political accountability: The NPA directly led to Acosta's resignation from the cabinet and prompted broader discussions about accountability in the justice system.

Renewed prosecution: The political pressure generated by the CVRA ruling and the Miami Herald's "Perversion of Justice" series contributed to the SDNY's decision to bring new federal charges in 2019, according to reporting by the New York Times. For the latest on file releases from this era, see the DOJ Epstein files hub.

What We Know

Based on the NPA document, court rulings, and official records:

The NPA was signed in September 2007 between Epstein's defense team and the U.S. Attorney's Office, S.D. Florida
Epstein pleaded guilty to two state charges and served approximately 13 months with work-release privileges
The NPA granted immunity to unnamed co-conspirators
Victims were not notified of the plea negotiations, violating the CVRA per Judge Marra's 2019 ruling
The DOJ OPR found "poor judgment" but not professional misconduct
Acosta resigned from the cabinet in July 2019 over his role in the NPA

What We Don't Know

The complete list of individuals who were granted co-conspirator immunity under the NPA
The full extent of internal deliberations within the U.S. Attorney's Office about the NPA terms
Whether external pressure influenced the decision to offer such favorable terms
The full content of communications between Acosta and Epstein's defense team during negotiations
Whether additional consequences for the prosecutors involved may follow from ongoing investigations

Primary Sources

Non-Prosecution Agreement, S.D. Florida — courtlistener.com
CVRA ruling, Judge Marra, February 2019 — courtlistener.com
DOJ OPR review, November 2020 — justice.gov
Miami Herald, "Perversion of Justice" — miamiherald.com
Acosta Senate testimony — judiciary.senate.gov
FBI records, FOIA — vault.fbi.gov
Federal indictment, U.S. v. Epstein, SDNY — justice.gov
Associated Press, Acosta resignation — apnews.com

For the full legal case history, see Epstein Legal Proceedings. For the complete investigation chronology, see our investigation timeline. Browse all case documents in our document library or explore the full timeline.