DOJ-OGR-00021457.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page27 of 217
SA-281
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 281 of 348

CHAPTER THREE
PART THREE: ANALYSIS

I. OVERVIEW

In addition to criticism of Acosta's decision to end the federal investigation by means of
the NPA, public and media attention also focused on the government's treatment of victims. In
the CVRA litigation and in more recent media reports, victims complained that they were not
informed about the government's intention to end its investigation of Epstein because the
government did not consult with victims before the NPA was signed; did not inform them of
Epstein's state plea hearing and sentencing, thereby denying them the opportunity to attend; and
actively misled them through statements that the federal investigation was ongoing. The district
court overseeing the CVRA litigation concluded that the government violated the Crime Victims'
Rights Act and "mis[led] the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility" and
that "[i]t was a material omission for the Government to suggest to the victims that they have
patience relative to an investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute."395
The government's conduct, which involved both FBI and USAO actions, led to allegations that
the prosecutors had purposefully failed to inform victims of the NPA to prevent victims from
complaining publicly or in state court.

OPR examined the government's course of conduct when interacting with the victims,
including the lack of consultation with the victims before the NPA was signed; Acosta's decision
to defer to state authorities the decision to notify victims of Epstein's state plea; and the decision
to delay informing victims about the NPA until after Epstein entered his plea on June 30, 2008.
OPR considered whether letters sent to victims by the FBI after the NPA was signed contained
false or misleading statements. OPR also evaluated representations Villafaña made to victims in
January and February 2008, and to an attorney for a victim in June 2008.

II. THE SUBJECTS DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS
STANDARD BY ENTERING INTO THE NPA WITHOUT CONSULTING THE
VICTIMS

During the CVRA litigation, the government acknowledged that the USAO did not consult
with victims about the government's intention to enter into the NPA. In its February 21, 2019
opinion, the district court concluded that "once the Government failed to consult with victims
about the government's intention to enter into the NPA, a violation of the CVRA occurred." OPR
considered this finding as part of its investigation into the USAO's handling of the Epstein case, and examined
whether, before the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, federal prosecutors were obligated
to consult with victims under the CVRA, and if so, whether any of the subject attorneys—Acosta,
Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafaña—intentionally violated or recklessly disregarded that
obligation.

395 Doe v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1219, 1221 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2019).
255
DOJ-OGR-00021457