What did the draft 2007 federal indictment and prosecution memorandum reportedly prepared in Florida allege, and has any draft been produced?
Executive summary
A draft federal indictment prepared by prosecutors in Florida in 2007 allegedly laid out dozens of sex‑trafficking and related charges against Jeffrey Epstein and unnamed co‑defendants, describing systematic recruitment and sexual abuse of underage girls between roughly 2001 and 2005; a companion prosecution memorandum articulated legal theories, potential counts and evidentiary strengths and vulnerabilities, but the draft indictment was never filed and portions of the materials have only recently been released or described in newly produced Justice Department records [1] [2] [3].
1. What the 2007 draft indictment reportedly alleged
According to multiple news outlets and court records, the draft indictment prepared in 2007 would have encompassed dozens of counts — reported as a 32‑count or 60‑count document in different records — charging Epstein with a pattern of sex crimes that included enticing and procuring females under 18 to engage in lewd conduct and sex‑trafficking over several years, and recounting that Epstein told at least one 16‑year‑old victim that “bad things could happen” if she reported him [1] [4] [3]. The draft laid out allegations that underage girls were paid to give sexualized “massages,” that some victims were asked to recruit other minors, and that the conduct spanned Palm Beach and New York between roughly 2001 and 2005 [2] [5] [4].
2. What the prosecution memorandum reportedly contained
Reporting indicates a multi‑page prosecution memorandum accompanied the draft indictment and set out how federal statutes might apply to Epstein’s conduct, weighed charging options and identified potential credibility problems among some witnesses — including issues noted by defense lawyers such as prior substance use, criminal history or inconsistent accounts — while recommending specific counts and tactical steps such as presenting a sealed indictment to a grand jury [2] [3] [6]. The memorandum reportedly balanced “robust” legal arguments for a broad federal case against vulnerabilities prosecutors feared could undermine victims’ credibility at trial [2] [3].
3. Who prosecutors considered charging
Documents and contemporaneous accounts state that the draft would not only have named Epstein but also three assistants or employees and two companies as defendants, with vital names redacted in released files; prosecutors reportedly described co‑conspirators who arranged appointments, placed calls, handled payments and otherwise facilitated the alleged scheme [7] [8] [9]. The indictment drafts also referenced other associates tied to Epstein’s household and business network, though many identities remain redacted in the released material [8] [9].
4. Why the draft never led to federal filing and the non‑prosecution agreement
Despite the draft and prosecution memorandum, the Southern District of Florida ultimately negotiated a non‑prosecution agreement with Epstein in 2007 that let him plead to state solicitation charges and avoid federal prosecution; then‑U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta later said he worried about state law applicability and witness credibility, and a 2020 DOJ review concluded Acosta showed “poor judgment” in the deal while finding no prosecutorial misconduct [2] [6] [8]. Grand‑jury testimony and FBI investigative work proceeded in 2007, but records do not show a federal indictment was ever presented for a filed charging instrument [7] [10].
5. Has any draft been produced or disclosed?
Yes — portions of the draft indictment and related prosecution materials have been disclosed in the Justice Department’s large document production and reported on by multiple outlets: news organizations described a 56‑page or 53‑page draft indictment and a lengthy prosecution memorandum among thousands of pages released in late January 2026, though many names and details remain redacted and some records referenced in reporting (for example, full unredacted indictment text or certain spreadsheets) were briefly posted and then removed or remain partially redacted by DOJ [3] [1] [9]. Court filings and the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility report from 2020 had earlier documented the existence of drafts and a prosecution memo, but independent public access to a fully unredacted, signed draft indictment has been limited [6] [10].
6. Open questions, competing narratives and reporting limits
While the newly released trove confirms prosecutors drafted expansive federal charges and a prosecutorial analysis in 2007, outlets differ on the draft’s exact page and count totals and many core names and exhibits remain redacted, constraining definitive public reconstruction of every alleged act or who would have been indicted [1] [3] [7]. Alternative viewpoints — including Acosta’s explanation about legal strategy and concern over witness credibility — are on record and were cited by DOJ reviewers who judged the plea negotiation unwise but not professionally improper; the released documents substantiate that prosecutors saw a strong case yet opted for the NPA, a decision whose motivations and appropriateness remain contested in courts and public debate [6] [10]. Absent a fully unredacted filed indictment in the public record, reporting must rely on the production the DOJ has posted and contemporaneous internal reviews to describe what the draft and memorandum alleged [3] [2].