DOJ-OGR-00000339.jpg

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 11 Filed 07/12/19 Page 11 of 14

Honorable Richard M. Berman
United States District Judge
July 12, 2019
Page 11

B. Danger to Obstruct Justice

The defendant has also already demonstrated a willingness to use intimidation and aggressive tactics in connection with a criminal investigation. Far from being “musty,” Release Motion at 6 n.6, the defendant’s past behavior in connection with being investigated for sexually abusing children is the best predictor of his likely incentives and activities in connection with being charged with sexually abusing children. For example, in the incident the defendant now claims was not attributable to or authorized by him, the contemporaneous police report indicates that pressure tactics were at the very least coordinated closely with individuals in the defendant’s orbit. See Palm Beach Police Report (the “Police Report”) (Ex. B). According to the Police Report, the parent of one of the defendant’s victims was driven off the road by a private investigator. The Police Report provides further information regarding victim and witness threats and intimidation reported against an individual who was directly in contact with an assistant of the defendant, followed “immediately” by a call to that same individual from a phone number associated with the defendant’s businesses and associates.

Separately, and in addition, there are also extensive allegations of obstruction and tampering in connection with civil lawsuits brought against the defendant following his 2008 conviction. See Doe v. United States, 08 Civ. 80736 (S.D. Fla.), Dkt. 291-15 at 21-23, 31. Moreover, police reports suggest that an associate of Epstein’s was offering to buy victims’ silence during the course of the prior investigation. Specifically, one victim reported that “she was personally contacted through a source that has maintained contact with Epstein,” who “assured [the victim] that she would receive monetary compensation for her assistance in not cooperating with law enforcement.” Indeed, the victim reported having been told: “Those who help him will be compensated and those who hurt him will be dealt with.” See Palm Beach Police Report (Ex. C).

And Epstein’s efforts to influence witnesses continue to this day. As in the past, within recent months he paid significant amounts of money to influence individuals who were close to him during the time period charged in this case and who might be witnesses against him at a trial. By way of background, on or about November 28, 2018, the Miami Herald began publishing a series of articles relating to the defendant, his conduct, and the circumstances of his prior conviction and the non-prosecution agreement (“NPA”). Records obtained by the Government from Institution-1 appear to show that just two days later, on or about November 30, 2018, the defendant wired $100,000 from a trust account he controlled to an individual named as a possible co-conspirator in the NPA. The same records appear to show that just three days after that, on or about December 3, 2018, the defendant wired $250,000 from the same trust account to another individual named as a possible co-conspirator in the NPA and also identified as one of the defendant’s employees in the Indictment. Neither of these payments appears to be recurring or repeating during the approximately five years of bank records presently available to the Government. This course of action, and in particular its timing, suggests the defendant was attempting to further influence co-conspirators who might provide information against him in light of the recently re-emerging allegations

DOJ-OGR-00000339