DOJ-OGR-00021187.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page15 of 258
SA-13
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 13 of 348

interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the government’s
treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is contradictory to the
Department’s mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of a crime endure.

OPR determined that none of the subjects was responsible for communications sent to
certain victims after the NPA was signed that described the case as “under investigation” and that
failed to inform them of the NPA. The letters were sent by an FBI administrative employee who
was not directly involved in the investigation, incorporated standard form language used by the
FBI when communicating with victims, and were not drafted or reviewed by the subjects.
Moreover, the statement that the matter was “under investigation” was not false because the
government in fact continued to investigate the case in anticipation that Epstein would not fulfill
the terms of the NPA. However, the letters risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim
frustration and confusion by failing to provide important information about the status of the
investigation. The letters also demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies
responsible for communicating with Epstein’s victims and showed a lack of attention to and
oversight regarding communication with victims.

After the NPA was signed, Acosta elected to defer to the State Attorney the decision
whether to notify victims about the state’s plea hearing pursuant to the state’s own victim’s rights
requirements. Although Acosta’s decision was within his authority and did not constitute
professional misconduct, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to
make certain that the state intended to and would notify victims identified through the federal
investigation about the state plea hearing. His decision left victims uninformed about an important
proceeding that resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had
communicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the
Department intentionally sought to silence the victims. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were
made aware of a court proceeding that was related to their own cases, and thus he failed to ensure
that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity.

OPR concludes that the decision to postpone notifying victims about the terms of the NPA
after it was signed and the omission of information about the NPA during victim interviews and
conversations with victims’ attorneys in 2008 do not constitute professional misconduct.
Contemporaneous records show that these actions were based on strategic concerns about creating
impeachment evidence that Epstein’s victims had financial motives to make claims against him,
evidence that could be used against victims at a trial, and were not for the purpose of silencing
victims. Nonetheless, the failure to reevaluate the strategy prior to interviews of victims and
discussions with victims’ attorneys occurring in 2008 led to interactions that contributed to
victims’ feelings that the government was intentionally concealing information from them.

After examining the full scope and context of the government’s interactions with victims,
OPR concludes that the government’s lack of transparency and its inconsistent messages led to
victims feeling confused and ill-treated by the government; gave victims and the public the
misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein’s counsel to keep the NPA secret
from the victims; and undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting agreement. The
overall result of the subjects’ anomalous handling of this case understandably left many victims
feeling ignored and frustrated and resulted in extensive public criticism. In sum, OPR concludes

xi

DOJ-OGR-00021187