What specific federal statutes did Ghislaine Maxwell face in her 2021 indictment?
Executive summary
Ghislaine Maxwell’s 2020–2021 federal charging papers in the Southern District of New York accused her of a bundle of federal crimes arising from her alleged role recruiting and grooming underage girls for Jeffrey Epstein, including counts of enticing and transporting minors for sexual activity, sex‑trafficking and related conspiracies, and perjury tied to a 2016 deposition (superseding indictment filed March 29, 2021) [1]. The Justice Department and court documents describe the charged conduct as occurring from the mid‑1990s into the 2000s and involving victims as young as 14 [1] [2].
1. What the indictment actually charged — a concise list
The charging instruments filed in Manhattan initially alleged that Maxwell “assisted, facilitated and participated” in Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse network and—after the March 29, 2021 superseding indictment—specified counts that included: enticing a minor to travel to engage in criminal sexual activity; transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity; conspiracy to commit those offenses; sex trafficking of a minor and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking; and two perjury counts stemming from a 2016 civil deposition [1]. The Sherloc summary of the superseding indictment lists those additions and the DOJ press materials reiterate the underlying allegations about recruiting and grooming girls as young as 14 [1] [2].
2. How prosecutors framed the federal statutes (the legal theory)
Prosecutors treated the case primarily as federal sex‑trafficking and transportation/enticement offenses: transporting or enticing minors across state lines (or interstate travel) for illegal sexual activity and sex‑trafficking statutes that criminalize recruitment and facilitation of minors for commercial sexual activity. The superseding indictment added explicit sex‑trafficking counts and their conspiracies to the earlier transportation/enticement and conspiracy allegations [1]. The Justice Department’s sentencing announcement framed the conviction as for “conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to sexually abuse minors,” tying the statutory counts to long‑running exploitation and grooming activities [2].
3. Perjury counts — why they mattered legally and procedurally
Separate from the trafficking/transportation counts, prosecutors charged Maxwell with perjury for allegedly lying during a sworn 2016 deposition in a civil suit about her role in Epstein’s abuse. The two perjury counts were severed at one point from the other criminal counts for trial procedure purposes, and they form the basis for independent criminal exposure beyond the sex‑trafficking allegations [1] [3].
4. Timeline and amendments: why the March 29, 2021 superseding indictment matters
The original indictment filed in 2020 focused on enticing and transporting minors and related conspiracies. On March 29, 2021, prosecutors filed a superseding indictment that added sex‑trafficking of a minor and sex‑trafficking conspiracy counts, broadening the statutory basis for prosecution and alleging exploitation of an additional minor aged 14 between 2001–2004 [1]. Court filings and later appeals reference those added counts when disputing issues like scope and potential preclusion by prior agreements involving Epstein [4] [5].
5. Victim allegations and statutory gravity
DOJ and court summaries state the charged conduct spanned from about 1994 through at least 2004 and involved multiple victims, some as young as 14, which elevated the federal exposure under child‑trafficking and transportation statutes and informed sentencing [1] [2]. The Southern District’s sentencing release ties the statutory convictions to that timeline and the age of victims [2].
6. What the provided sources do not say (limitations)
Available sources do not supply the exact United States Code section numbers (for example, precise 18 U.S.C. section citations) in the excerpts provided here; court docket PDFs and press releases in full would normally list the precise statutes, but those specific code citations are not present in the snippets provided (not found in current reporting). Similarly, while appellate and Supreme Court filings referenced legal arguments about scope and a prior non‑prosecution agreement, the supplied excerpts do not fully detail those statutory or doctrinal disputes [4] [5].
7. Competing perspectives and procedural context
Prosecutors and the DOJ framed the case as a classic sex‑trafficking and transport/enticement prosecution supported by victim testimony and documentary evidence [2] [1]. Maxwell’s later appeals argued—among other things discussed in filings—that prior agreements or timing issues could affect prosecution scope; those arguments appear in appellate and certiorari filings but are not fully fleshed out in the provided snippets [4] [5]. Reporting outlets (The Guardian, CNN summaries) emphasize the criminal counts and the perjury severance as central trial dynamics [3] [6].
If you want, I can pull the exact statutory citations (the 18 U.S.C. sections charged) from the full indictment or DOJ docket entry if you provide those documents or allow me to search further.