DOJ-OGR-00004598.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 301 of 349

agent and Villafaña consulted with the USAO’s Professional Responsibility Officer about the matter, and thereafter stopped notifying the victims about the NPA and their ability to pursue monetary damages according to its terms.

Villafaña advised Sloman by email of her concerns regarding the potential impeachment evidence, telling him, “One thing I am concerned about is that, if we [file charges] now, cross-examination will consist of- ‘and the government told you that if Mr. Epstein is convicted, you are entitled to a large amount of damages right?’” Explaining the decision in her later CVRA declaration, Villafaña said that after Epstein’s attorneys “complained that the victims were receiving an incentive to overstate their involvement with Mr. Epstein in order to increase their damages claims,” she “concluded that informing additional victims could compromise the witnesses’ credibility at trial if Epstein reneged on the agreement.” Acosta was aware of these concerns as he referred to them in an August 2008 email, “[W]e also believed that contacting the victims would compromise them as potential witnesses. Epstein argued very forcefully that they were doing this for the money, and we did not want to discuss liability with them, which was [a] key part of [the] agree[ment].”

The case agents interviewed victims in October and November 2007, but did not inform them about the NPA. 431 On January 31, 2008, the FBI agents, Villafaña, and the CEOS Trial Attorney interviewed three victims, including Courtney Wild, and they interviewed at least one more victim the next day. 432 Wild and two others had been contacted by the FBI in the fall of 2007 and may have been informed about the resolution of the federal investigation.

Villafaña told OPR that during the January 31, 2008 interviews, she did not specifically tell the victims that “there was a signed non-prosecution agreement that had these terms.” She stated that she would not use “terminology” such as “NPA” because “most people don’t understand what that means.” Instead, with respect to the three victims who, according to Villafaña, had been informed by the FBI about the resolution, she stated that “an agreement had been reached where [Epstein] was going to be entering a guilty plea, but it doesn’t look [like] he intends to actually perform . . . [and] now it looks like this may have to be charged . . . and may have to go to trial.” Villafaña recalled telling some victims that Epstein “was supposed to enter a plea in state court” that would end the investigation, but she did not recall distinguishing between the “federal investigation versus a state investigation.” Villafaña told OPR she explained “the case was under investigation,” she and the agents “were preparing . . . again” to file charges, and they hoped “that charges would be brought.” An email from Villafaña to Sloman and Acosta during this time period reflects that she had such discussions with at least one victim interviewed on this date: “The second girl . . . was very upset about the 18 month deal she had read about in the paper. . . . [S]he would rather not get any money and have Epstein spend a significant time in jail.” Villafaña, however, did not recall telling all of the victims interviewed at this time of the state plea; rather, she likely only told those who knew about the resolution from the FBI. In her own 2015 CVRA-case declaration, Wild stated that she “was not told about any [NPA] or any potential resolution of

431 FBI agents also interviewed victims in March and May of 2008, without prosecutors, and did not inform the victims of the NPA.

432 Two additional victims were scheduled to be interviewed on February 1, 2008, but the evidence is unclear as to whether the interviews occurred.

274

DOJ-OGR-00004598