DOJ-OGR-00021482.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document SN 306 3536039, PageS2 of 217 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 306 of 348 intentionally concealing information from them and was part of a series of interactions with victims that led to condemnation of the government’s treatment of victims.**° VI. THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO TREAT VICTIMS FORTHRIGHTLY AND WITH SENSITIVITY WHEN IT FAILED TO TIMELY PROVIDE VICTIMS WITH IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESOLUTION OF THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION Although OPR does not conclude that any of the subjects committed professional misconduct, either by failing to consult with the victims before the NPA was signed or in interactions afterwards, OPR’s findings are not an endorsement of the government’s course of action. The government’s interactions with victims confused and frustrated many of the victims, particularly the two CVRA petitioners and the two victims who had unsuccessfully attempted to join in the CVRA litigation. As a result, the victims’ and the public’s perception of the matter is that the prosecutors worked with Epstein’s attorneys to disenfranchise and silence the victims. It is unfortunate, and appears fundamentally unfair to the victims, that Acosta and Sloman (after Menchel and Lourie departed) took the unusual step of deciding to vet the USAO victim notification letters with the defense after the NPA was signed, but failed to go beyond the requirements of the CVRA or the 2005 Guidelines to consult with the victims before the NPA was signed. This result is contrary to the Department’s intent, as set forth in the 2005 Guidelines, that Department employees work to “minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of crime endure in its wake.” When considering the entirety of the government’s interactions with victims, OPR concludes that victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the Department. Wild’s criticisms of the government’s conduct were based on interactions that are similar to and generally representative of the government’s interactions with other Epstein victims and that demonstrate an overall lack of sensitivity to the victims by the government. Wild experienced a series of confusing and inconsistent communications in her interactions with Villafafia and the case agents. Wild received Villafafia’s letter in June 2007 stating inaccurately that she was a federal victim entitled to CVRA rights. She was interviewed by the FBI in August 2007 but was not told that a potential outcome was a state plea. Shortly after the September 24, 2007 signing of the NPA, the FBI contacted her to inform her of the resolution of the federal case. Nonetheless, on January 10, 2008, the FBI sent her a victims’ rights letter indicating that the case was under investigation and that some of her CVRA rights may not apply until after the defendant was charged. On January 31, 2008, Villafafia re-interviewed Wild, along with a CEOS attorney and the FBI agents, and told Wild that the case was under investigation, but did not specifically mention the NPA, although she may have mentioned a possible resolution. In mid-June 2008, when Edwards contacted Villafafia on Wild’s behalf, Villafafiia informed him that the case was under investigation but did not mention the NPA. Just before Epstein’s June 30, 2008 state court plea, 445 OPR notes that, similar to Villafafia, Sloman interacted with a victim’s attorney during the time period between the signing of the NPA and Epstein’s state guilty plea. In January 2008, Sloman received a telephone call from his former law partner, who represented one of the victims and who asked Sloman whether the federal government could bring charges against Epstein. Sloman, concerned about the potential for conflict of interest allegations due to his prior business relations with the attorney, refused to answer any questions regarding Epstein. Because Sloman refused to provide any information, OPR found no basis for finding that Sloman misled the attorney. 280 DOJ-OGR-00021482