DOJ-OGR-00021475.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document EN _399 3536039, Page45 of 217 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 299 of 348 resolution of the case to ensure Epstein’s victims were given an opportunity to attend the plea hearing, and to possibly speak about the impact of Epstein’s crimes, presented a glaring contrast with Acosta’s responsiveness to the demands of Epstein’s attorneys, which included the unusual courtesy of allowing them to preview and respond to the USAO’s draft victim notifications. This contrast added to the victims’ perception that they had been treated unfairly, a view shared by the public. Nothing in the documentary record suggests that Acosta thought through the issue of determining which victims would be notified by the state, or that he took any steps to ensure that all of the known federal victims received information about the state plea hearing. Instead, as with his decision to resolve the federal investigation through a state-based resolution, Acosta exercised poor judgment when he made critical decisions affecting the federal investigation and the victims, but also failed to consider the full consequences of those decisions or what was needed to implement them. Acosta’s failure to consider these issues before simply leaving the responsibility for making notifications entirely to the State Attorney’s discretion reflected poorly on the USAO and the Department as a whole. It left victims in the dark 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 by keeping them uninformed about the NPA and the resulting state proceeding. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were afforded an opportunity to attend a hearing that was related to their own cases and thus failed to ensure that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity. V. VILLAFANA DID NOT COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN HER ORAL COMMUNICATIONS TO VICTIMS AND VICTIMS’ ATTORNEYS, IN WHICH SHE DESCRIBED THE CASE AS “UNDER INVESTIGATION” BUT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE NPA TO SOME VICTIMS From September 24, 2007, when the NPA was signed, until after Epstein’s June 30, 2008 state court plea, the case agents, acting under Villafafia’s direction, directly informed only three victims that the government had signed an NPA and that, if Epstein complied with its terms, the federal investigation would be closed. During this time period, Villafafia and the case agents interacted with several victims and their attorneys, and Villafafia contacted victims’ attorney Bradley Edwards to encourage him to attend the state court plea hearing, but she did not inform victims or Edwards of the NPA or the resolution of the federal investigation. As described in Part One of this chapter, after the NPA was signed, the FBI case agent and co-case agent began notifying victims about the NPA.**° After speaking to three victims, however, the FBI case agent became concerned that informing the victims about the NPA and the monetary damages provision would create potential impeachment material for the victims and the agent should Epstein breach the NPA and the case proceed to indictment and trial. As the case agent told OPR, “I would . . . have to testify that I told every one of these girls that they could sue Mr. Epstein for money, and I was not comfortable with that, I didn’t think it was right.” The case 20 Although Wild disputed that she was informed of the resolution of the federal case, the case agent’s email to Villafafia from this time period reflects that at least one victim understood that the federal case was resolved and that she was unhappy with the resolution. 273 DOJ-OGR-00021475