Published on: 20 Feb, 2026 15:15 IST
By Adv (Dr.) Anup K Tiwari
The Jeffrey Epstein saga continues to make headlines worldwide, and the latest development adds another layer to this long-running tragedy. Just today, on February 20, 2026, The New Indian Express reported that Epstein’s estate has agreed to pay up to $35 million (approximately ₹290 crore) to settle outstanding claims from victims who allege they were sexually assaulted, abused, or trafficked by him between January 1, 1995, and August 10, 2019 (the date of his death in jail). This proposed settlement, detailed in a court filing in a New York federal court, stems from a 2024 class-action lawsuit against Epstein’s co-executors- his former lawyer Darren Indyke and former accountant Richard Kahn accusing them of enabling his activities through their legal and financial roles. The payout would be $35 million if 40 or more victims qualify for the class, or $25 million if fewer than 40 do. The deal requires approval from a federal judge, does not admit any wrongdoing or liability by the estate or executors, and aims to provide financial relief to survivors who haven’t yet settled. It comes amid ongoing document releases from the U.S. Department of Justice, including millions of files, photos, and videos that keep revealing Epstein’s connections to global elites.
At the heart of how Epstein dodged severe punishment for so long is something called a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA)- a legal deal that’s common in the U.S. but sounds almost alien to us in India. In simple terms, an NPA is like a pact between prosecutors and the accused: “You follow these rules, pay up, and cooperate, and we won’t press charges.” It’s a way for the government to resolve cases without a messy trial, often used in corporate fraud or white-collar crimes. But in Epstein’s case, it became a shield that let him walk away from federal sex trafficking charges with a slap on the wrist, despite allegations of abusing dozens of underage girls.
The Indian Judicial system doesn’t allow such “deals” in criminal cases, especially serious ones like sexual offenses. In India, once a crime is reported- say, under the IPC for rape or trafficking- the state takes over as the prosecutor, and private settlements can’t just wipe the slate clean. Think of cases like the Nirbhaya tragedy or recent #MeToo revelations; justice here is meant to serve society, not just the parties involved. But let’s dive deeper: How did this NPA protect Epstein? And why can’t something similar happen under Indian law? I’ll break it down step by step, drawing parallels to our Indian legal system where courts sometimes allow settlements in civil disputes but clamp down hard on criminal ones.
Does Jeffrey Epstein Entered into Non-Prosecution Agreements with Victim Underage Girls?
No, it’s not as straightforward as Epstein cutting deals directly with the underage girls he allegedly victimized. From what we know- and this is backed by court documents, DOJ investigations, and the latest 2026 file releases- Epstein didn’t sign NPAs with his victims. NPAs are strictly between prosecutors (representing the government) and the target of an investigation. They’re like a contract where the accused promises to behave- pay fines, admit facts, or cooperate- in exchange for no charges being filed. Epstein’s notorious 2008 NPA was solely with federal prosecutors in Florida, under then- U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta. It wasn’t some hush-money pact with the girls; those were separate civil settlements.
That said, the NPA did ripple out to affect the victims indirectly. It included clauses for restitution (basically, compensation payments) and made it easier for Epstein to settle civil lawsuits with them. Many victims ended up signing private agreements with Epstein, often including non-disclosure clauses (NDAs) that kept them quiet for years. These weren’t NPAs- they were civil deals, where victims got money in exchange for dropping lawsuits. But critics say this setup silenced them and shielded Epstein’s powerful friends. In India, this would be unthinkable in a criminal context; our courts view sexual crimes as offenses against society, not just private matters. For instance, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS, which replaced the IPC in 2024), rape cases can’t be “settled” like a property dispute. Even if a victim wants to withdraw, the state prosecutor decides, and courts rarely allow it for heinous crimes.
The controversy around Epstein’s deal has been dissected in reports like the 2020 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility review and the Miami Herald’s 2018 exposé. It’s seen as a “sweetheart deal” that let a predator off easy because of his clout. The new 2026 files add fuel, showing Epstein’s emails plotting to use his connections- like Gates- for leverage. Melinda French Gates, in a recent interview, said these mentions dredge up painful memories and that people like her ex-husband “have to answer” for them. For us in India, it underscores how unequal justice can be—imagine if a powerful figure here tried something similar in a POCSO case; our Supreme Court would likely strike it down as against public policy.
Background on the Case
The Epstein investigation kicked off between 2005 and 2007, when the FBI and Palm Beach police in Florida dug into reports of him sexually abusing dozens of underage girls, some as young as 14, at his lavish mansion and other spots. The accusations were horrific: recruiting minors for prostitution, assaulting them, and even trafficking them to his elite circle of friends. Prosecutors had a hefty 53-page federal indictment ready, charging him with serious federal crimes like sex trafficking, which could have meant life in prison.
But instead of a full-blown federal trial, things took a turn. Epstein’s star-studded legal team- featuring big names like Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr- negotiated hard with prosecutors. The result? That 2008 NPA, signed on September 24, 2007, followed by Epstein pleading guilty in state court on June 30, 2008. In India, this kind of behind-the-scenes bargaining in a child abuse case would be a non-starter. Our system, under the CrPC (now BNSS), emphasizes public prosecution- think of how the CBI or police handle high-profile cases like the Unnao rape or Kathua. Settlements aren’t an option; the state fights for justice, and victims’ rights are protected under laws like the Victim Compensation Scheme.
Key Terms of the 2008 NPA
- No Federal Prosecution: The U.S. government promised not to slap federal charges on Epstein or four of his named accomplices (assistants who allegedly helped lure victims) in Florida’s Southern District, as long as he stuck to the deal. This basically killed the FBI’s deeper probe into more victims or his network.
- State Plea Deal: Epstein copped to two lighter state charges in Florida: felony solicitation of prostitution and procuring minors for it. His sentence? Just 18 months in county jail (he served only 13, with work release letting him roam free for 12 hours a day), plus a year of house arrest. He also registered as a sex offender- a far cry from federal penalties.
- Victim-Related Provisions: Here’s where it touches the girls indirectly. The NPA mandated Epstein pay damages to at least 34 identified victims from the FBI list. It smoothed the path for civil settlements by having him agree not to fight liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, provided victims dropped other claims. Shockingly, prosecutors handed over victim lists to Epstein’s team and even picked a lawyer for them (funded by Epstein).
- Secrecy: The whole thing was hush-hush- no court filing needed. Prosecutors even agreed to tip off Epstein before releasing info under FOIA requests. Victims weren’t looped in, which a judge later called a violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA).
In an Indian lens, this secrecy and victim sidelining would violate our constitutional rights under Article 21 (right to life and fair trial). Courts here, like in the Jessica Lal case, push for transparency and victim participation.
What are Non-Prosecution Agreements?
Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs) are a distinctly American legal mechanism, commonly used in federal criminal cases, especially involving corporations or high-profile individuals. Under an NPA, the government agrees not to file any formal criminal charges against the accused party as long as they fulfill a set of strict conditions. These typically include paying substantial fines or restitution to victims, waiving the statute of limitations so the case can be reopened later if needed, fully cooperating with ongoing government investigations (such as providing documents, testimony, or other evidence), admitting to the relevant facts of the wrongdoing (often documented in a detailed “Statement of Facts”), and taking concrete steps to address and prevent future misconduct- such as overhauling internal compliance programs or even accepting the appointment of an independent monitor to oversee reforms.
Unlike Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs), NPAs do not involve filing charges in court and then holding them in abeyance; instead, no charges are ever formally lodged, which means there is virtually no judicial oversight. The agreement remains a private contractual arrangement between the prosecutors (usually the U.S. Department of Justice or agencies like the SEC) and the target, although publicly traded companies may be required to disclose its existence in financial filings or regulatory reports. If the party breaches any term of the NPA- whether by failing to pay, withholding cooperation, or committing new violations- the prosecutors can immediately revive the original case, and any admissions or evidence provided during the NPA period can be used against them in court.
It is important to distinguish NPAs from other related but different legal concepts. For example, an Affidavit of Non-Prosecution (ANP) is sometimes used in interpersonal or personal crimes, such as domestic assault or minor offenses. In these situations, the alleged victim may voluntarily sign a statement declaring that they do not wish the matter to be prosecuted. However, unlike an NPA, an ANP is not binding on the prosecutor—the decision whether to proceed with charges ultimately rests with the government, which weighs the available evidence, the public interest, and broader considerations of justice. The victim’s affidavit may influence that decision, but it does not guarantee dismissal or non-prosecution.
In India, we have compounding (settling minor offenses under CrPC Section 320), but not for grave crimes.
Does Non-Prosecution Agreements are Valid in USA?
Yes, NPAs are legit and common in U.S. federal cases, per DOJ guidelines (Justice Manual 9-27.600+). They’re contracts between DOJ/SEC and targets (mostly companies, sometimes individuals), promising no charges for compliance like fines, admissions, cooperation, and reforms. Unlike DPAs (charges filed but deferred, with court approval), NPAs skip court entirely. Used since the 1990s, they’re enforceable but criticized for letting corporations “buy” leniency. High-profile examples abound in FCPA or fraud cases.
Does Non-Prosecution Agreements Valid in India?
In India, NPAs or any agreements that outright bar prosecution in criminal cases are generally invalid and frowned upon by courts. Our legal system sees crimes- especially serious ones as wrongs against society, not just private feuds. Under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, contracts against public policy are void, and deals to “stifle prosecution” fall squarely there. Courts have repeatedly struck them down, emphasizing that justice can’t be privatized.
For example, in the Supreme Court case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, the apex court laid out that while settlements can lead to quashing in some non-heinous, compoundable offenses, serious crimes like rape or corruption can’t be compromised. Similarly, in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, the SC warned against quashing proceedings just because parties settle, if it undermines public interest. In State of M.P. v. Madanlal (2015) 7 SCC 681, the court outright said rape cases can’t be settled, as they’re offenses against women’s dignity and society.
That said, Indian courts do encourage settlements in civil, property, family, or money recovery cases think mediation under the Commercial Courts Act or family courts for divorce/child custody. Even in some criminal matters, if the offense is compoundable (like minor assaults under BNS Section 320 equivalent), parties can settle with court approval. But for non-compoundable crimes, no dice.
Non-Prosecution Agreements Valid in India in Certain Conditions
While full-blown NPAs aren’t recognized, elements of settlement can creep into Indian law under strict conditions. For instance, in settlement agreements for disputes, parties might include clauses promising not to file fresh proceedings on the same issue common in civil or commercial pacts. But this can’t extend to barring ongoing criminal prosecutions.
Take the Mediation Act, 2023: It enforces mediated settlements as binding, but only for civil/commercial matters, not criminal. In criminal cases, plea bargaining (introduced in 2005 under CrPC Chapter XXI-A, now BNSS) allows limited deals for offenses up to 7 years’ punishment—accused pleads guilty for a lighter sentence, but no dropping charges entirely. Excludes socio-economic crimes or those against women/children.
On the controversial side, some High Courts have quashed rape FIRs if the accused marries the victim, citing “happy family life”—like in a 2019 Kerala HC case where proceedings were dropped post-marriage. Or the Allahabad HC in 2025 quashing a POCSO case for a “happily married” couple. But the Supreme Court has pushed back: In State of M.P. v. Madanlal, it called such compromises “spectacularly sacrilegious,” saying marriage can’t cure rape. Recent SC rulings, like in 2026 quashing a consensual-relationship-turned-sour rape FIR, stress context but warn against criminalizing personal disputes.
In quashing under CrPC Section 482 (BNSS equivalent), courts can end proceedings if settlement serves justice, but only sparingly. Precedents like Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 guide this: For economic offenses or civil-criminal hybrids, yes; for heinous acts, no. In K. Bharthi Devi v. State of Telangana (2024), SC quashed bank fraud proceedings post-settlement, as continuation was abuse of process. But in Anil Mishra v. State of U.P. (2024), it reversed a quashing where the complainant wasn’t party to the settlement.