DOJ-OGR-00003223.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 47 of 348

On July 24, 2006, Villafaña alerted Sloman, who informed Acosta, that the State Attorney’s Office had charged and arrested Epstein. 28 On that same day, the FBI in West Palm Beach formally opened the case, assigning the case agent and, later, a co-case agent, to investigate it. Villafaña told Sloman that the FBI agents “are getting copies of all of the evidence and we are going to review everything at [the] FBI on Wednesday,” and she noted that her target date for filing federal charges against Epstein was August 25, 2006. Acosta emailed Sloman, asking whether it was “appropriate to approach [State Attorney Krischer] and give him a heads up re where we might go?” Sloman replied, “No for fear that it will be leaked straight to Epstein.” 29

Although Lourie learned of the case at this point from Sloman, and eventually took a more active role in supervising the investigation, Villafaña continued to update Acosta and Sloman directly on the progress of the case. 30 Villafaña’s immediate supervisor in West Palm Beach had little involvement in supervising the Epstein investigation, and at times, Villafaña directed her emails to Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie without copying her immediate supervisor. In the immediate supervisor’s view, however, “Miami” purposefully assumed all the “authority” for the case, which the immediate supervisor regarded as “highly unusual.” 31

By late August 2006, Villafaña and the FBI had identified several additional victims and obtained “some flight manifests, telephone messages, and cell phone records that show the communication and travel in interstate commerce” by Epstein and his associates. Villafaña reported to her supervisors that the State Attorney’s Office would not provide transcripts from the state grand jury voluntarily, and that she would be meeting with Chief Reiter “to convince him to relinquish the evidence to the FBI.” Villafaña also told her supervisors that she expected “a number of fights” over her document demands, and that some parties were refusing to comply “after having contact with Epstein or his attorneys.”

Villafaña’s reference to anticipated “fights” and lack of compliance led Sloman to ask whether she was referring to the victims. Villafaña responded that the problems did not involve victims, but rather a former employee of Epstein and some business entities that had objected to document demands as overly burdensome. Villafaña explained to Sloman and Lourie that some victims were “scared and/or embarrassed,” and some had been intimidated by the defense, but “everyone [with] whom the agents have spoken so far has been willing to tell her story.” Villafaña

28 On the same day, Sloman emailed Lourie, whom Villafaña had not yet briefed about the case, noting that Operation Leap Year was “a highly sensitive case involving some Palm Beach rich guy.”

29 During his OPR interview, Sloman did not recall what he meant by this remark, but speculated that it was likely that “we didn’t trust the Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office,” and that he believed there may have been “some type of relationship between somebody in the [State Attorney’s Office] and the defense team.”

30 After Villafaña sent a lengthy substantive email about the case to her immediate supervisor, Lourie, Sloman, and Acosta on August 23, 2006, Lourie emailed Sloman: “Do you and Alex [Acosta] want her updating you on the case?” Sloman responded, “At this point, I don’t really care. If Alex says something then I’ll tell her to just run it through you guys.”

31 OPR understood “Miami” to be a reference to the senior managers who were located in the Miami office, that is, Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel. Records show, and Villafaña told OPR, that she believed Epstein’s attorneys “made a conscious decision to skip” her immediate supervisor and directed their communications to the supervisory chain above the immediate supervisor—Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta.

21
DOJ-OGR-00003223