DOJ-OGR-00021249.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page77 of 258
SA-75
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 75 of 348

Villafaña, Menchel left the meeting after almost no discussion, leaving Villafaña “shocked and
stunned.”

Menchel told OPR that he did not recall the July 26, 2007 meeting. Nonetheless, he
strongly disputed Villafaña’s description of events, asserting that it would have been “directly at
odds with his management style” to convene such a meeting, announce Acosta’s decision, and
leave without discussion. Acosta told OPR that he had “decided and endorsed this resolution at
some point,” but he did not recall being aware that Menchel was going to announce the decision
at the July 26 meeting; in addition, although Acosta did not recall the circumstances of Menchel’s
relaying of that decision, he said it “would have been consistent with” his decision for Menchel to
do so. Neither Sloman nor Lourie recalled the meeting. The FBI case agent recalled attending a
meeting at the USAO in Miami with her co-case agent and supervisors, together with Villafaña,
Lourie (by telephone), Menchel, and Sloman, at which they discussed how to proceed with the
Epstein case. According to the case agent, at this meeting the FBI insisted that Epstein be
registered for life as a sexual offender, and the co-case agent advocated for waiting until the court
had ruled on the USAO’s ability to obtain Epstein’s computer equipment.

Regardless of exactly how Acosta’s decision regarding the two-year term was
communicated to Villafaña and the FBI agents, and regardless of who initially proposed the
specific term, the record shows that Acosta ultimately made the decision to offer Epstein a
resolution that included a two-year term of imprisonment, as he acknowledged.78

2. The Subjects’ Explanations for the Decision to Offer Epstein a Sentence
with a Two-Year Term of Incarceration

Villafaña asserted that she was not consulted about the specific two-year term before the
decision was made.79 Villafaña told OPR that she had worked hard to develop a strong case, and
none of her supervisors had identified to her any specific problem with the case that, in her view,
explained the decision to extend an offer for a two-year sentence. Villafaña also told OPR that
Menchel provided no explanation for this decision during the July 26, 2007 meeting, and Villafaña
did not ask for an explanation because she accepted his statement that it was Acosta’s decision.
Villafaña described the proposal as “random,” and told OPR, “[W]e’re all [sentencing] guidelines
people, so 24 months just makes no sense in the context of the guidelines. There’s no way to get
to 24 months with this set of offenses.”80

___________________________________________________________________
78 OPR notes that Villafaña did not appear hesitant to send emails to her supervisors setting forth her views and
objections, and there is no reference before this meeting in any of her emails indicating that a decision had been made
to offer a two-year term of incarceration. Therefore, given that a meeting had been arranged involving Menchel and
Villafaña, and possibly most of the other primary USAO and FBI participants, it seems logical that Acosta made a
decision to resolve the case with a two-year state plea not long before the meeting.

79 OPR found no evidence in the documentary record indicating that Villafaña had knowledge of Acosta’s
decision or the two-year term before the July 26, 2007 meeting at which she said she learned of it.

80 From the time the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines went into effect in 1987, they have been the mechanism for
calculating federal criminal sentences. Since 2005, the Guidelines have been non-binding, but the federal courts are
required to consider them. As noted in the commentary to USAM § 9-27.710,

49
DOJ-OGR-00021249