DOJ-OGR-00023060.tif
Extracted Text (OCR)
also informed Sloman and Lourie that the FBI was re-interviewing victims who had given taped
statements to the PBPD, to ensure their stories “have not changed,” and that “[a]ny discrepancies
will be noted and considered.” She conceded that “[g]etting them to tell their stories in front of a
jury at trial may be much harder,” but expressed confidence that the two key victims “will stay the
course.” She acknowledged that the case “needs to be rock solid.”
The case agent told OPR that in this initial stage of the investigation, the FBI “partnered
up very well” with the USAO. She recalled that there was little higher-level management oversight
either from the FBI or the USAO, and “we were allowed to do what we needed to do to get our
job done.” This included continuing to identify, locate, and interview victims and Epstein
employees, and obtaining records relating to Epstein’s travel, communications, and financial
transactions. The case agent viewed the case as “strong.”
5. October 2006 — February 2007: Epstein’s Defense Counsel Initiate
Contact with Villafaiia, Lourie, and Sloman, and Press for a Meeting
Just as Epstein had learned of the PBPD investigation at its early stage, he quickly became
aware of the federal investigation, both because the FBI was interviewing his employees and
because the government was seeking records from his businesses. One of Epstein’s New York
attorneys, Gerald Lefcourt, made initial contact with Villafafia in August 2006. As the
investigation progressed, Epstein took steps to persuade the USAO to decline federal
prosecution.*” As with the state investigation, Epstein employed attorneys who had experience
with the Department and relationships with individual USAO personnel.*? One of Epstein’s
Miami lawyers, Guy Lewis, a former career AUSA and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of
Florida, made an overture on Epstein’s behalf in early November 2006.*4 Lewis telephoned
Villafafia, a call that Sloman joined at Villafafia’s request. Lewis offered to provide Villafafia
2 Villafafia told OPR that Epstein’s lawyers wanted to stop the investigation “prematurely.”
33 Chapter One, Section IIIB of this Report identifies several of the attorneys known to have represented
Epstein in connection with the federal investigation, along with a brief summary of their connections to the
Department, the USAO, or individuals involved in the investigation. At least one former AUSA also represented
during civil depositions individuals associated with Epstein. Menchel told OPR that he and his colleagues recognized
Epstein was selecting attorneys based on their perceived influence within the USAO, and they viewed this tactic as
“ham-fisted” and “clumsy.” Menchel told OPR, “[O]ur perspective was this is not going to .. . change anything.”
34 Lewis served in the USAO for over 10 years, and was U.S. Attorney from 2000 to 2002. He then served for
two years as Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the Department’s administrative office serving the
USS. Attorneys.
Early in the investigation, Lourie voluntarily notified the USAO’s Professional Responsibility Officer that
Lourie was friends with Lewis and also had a close friendship with Lewis’s law partner, who also was a former AUSA
and also represented Epstein. Lourie requested guidance as to whether his relationships with Lewis and Lewis’s law
partner created either a conflict of interest or an appearance of impropriety mandating recusal. The Professional
Responsibility Officer responded that Lourie’s relationships with the two men were not “covered” relationships under
the conflict of interest guidelines but deferred to Sloman or Menchel “to make the call.” Thereafter, Sloman authorized
Lourie to continue supervising the case. During his OPR interview, Lourie asserted that his personal connection to
Lewis did not influence his handling of the case.
22
DOJ-OGR-00023060