What earlier court filings from 2007 and civil suits name Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, Adriana Ross or Nadia Marcinkova as co‑conspirators and what did those filings allege?
Executive summary
Federal prosecutors in the 2007 Florida non‑prosecution agreement listed “potential co‑conspirators” and that document explicitly included the names Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross (also cited as Adriana Mucinska), Lesley Groff and Nadia Marcinkova as persons who would receive immunity if Epstein’s deal was honored [1] [2]. Multiple later civil suits and related filings — including the 2017 and 2019 survivor complaints and filings seeking to void the 2008 deal — repeated those names and accused the four women of roles such as scheduling, recruiting and participating in sexual encounters with underage victims [1] [3] [4].
1. The 2007/2008 non‑prosecution agreement and its “potential co‑conspirators”
The core earlier court document is the 2007 federal investigation that resulted in a 2008 non‑prosecution agreement in Florida which, as later described by Judge Kenneth Marra and reported broadly, contained language promising that the United States would not bring criminal charges against “potential co‑conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova” if Epstein complied with the deal [2] [4]. That agreement effectively placed those four women on a list of individuals the government treated as potential co‑conspirators and granted them immunity in connection with the negotiated disposition [1] [4].
2. Civil suits that named the four and the allegations they made
Survivor civil complaints filed after state law changes in 2019 and earlier civil suits brought by Jane Does repeatedly named Kellen, Groff, Ross and Marcinkova as alleged enablers or co‑conspirators; for example, Jennifer Araoz’s 2019 suit — amended in October 2019 — added Lesley Groff and others as enablers and recounted allegations of recruitment, scheduling, travel coordination and payment for services tied to Epstein’s abuse [5] [1]. Other civil filings and press summaries accused Sarah Kellen of arranging meetings and escorting underage girls for “massages,” taking nude photos of victims and facilitating encounters, while describing Groff as a long‑time executive assistant who allegedly managed appointments, payments and rules for girls in Epstein’s orbit [6] [1] [7]. Nadia Marcinkova was alleged in police reports and several filings to have been brought to Epstein as a minor and to have participated in sexual activity with underage victims, and Adriana Ross was described in filings and reporting as a former model and household staffer who appeared on flight logs and helped organize travel and sessions [7] [8] [6].
3. Court language and later judicial scrutiny
Subsequent court actions amplified the earlier naming: Judge Nathan, in the 2022 judgment related to Ghislaine Maxwell, described Sarah Kellen as “a knowing participant in the criminal conspiracy” and characterized her as “criminally responsible,” language drawn from witness testimony and trial findings and reported as connected to the earlier documents [5]. The 2008 deal itself was later the subject of motions to nullify on the grounds that it violated victims’ rights, and courts and news outlets repeatedly cited the non‑prosecution language shielding the four names [2] [4].
4. Defense claims, dropped civil claims and lack of criminal charges
Those named have consistently denied wrongdoing through counsel or declined to comment, and some civil claims against individuals were discontinued or dismissed; Lesley Groff’s attorneys publicly maintained she worked as an office‑based executive assistant with no knowledge of illegal activity and a 2020 civil claim against her was dropped as part of a settlement process, with her counsel stating no financial contribution by Groff [9] [1]. Federal prosecutors after Epstein’s 2019 arrest said they were not bound by the Florida agreement and indicated the women could be subject to charges, yet news reporting and court statements through 2024–2025 show no public criminal indictments of these four individuals tied directly to the 2007 matter [8] [3].
5. How reporting, redactions and document context shape what the filings allege
Public understanding depends on a mix of partially redacted court files, survivor declarations, police reports and investigative reporting that sometimes use different names and details (for example Adriana Mucinska/Ross and Nadia Marcinkova/Marcinko), and those sources vary in specificity — some quotes allege direct participation in sex acts and recruitment while others describe logistical support or “schedulers” roles — so the filings collectively paint a picture of alleged facilitation, recruitment and participation but differ in the precise factual assertions and legal labeling [10] [11] [7]. Reporting outlets and civil complaints present alternative framings — prosecutors’ 2007 identification vs. defense denials and dropped civil claims — and the primary source documents remain those redacted prosecutor files, the disclosed non‑prosecution agreement language, and the survivor civil complaints and amended pleadings cited above [2] [1] [5].