DOJ-OGR-00023183.tif

and guaranteed sexual offender registration by Epstein . . . were among the factors [that led to the NPA].7!° go forward with a trial: [W]hen we would meet with victims, we would ask them how they wanted the case to be resolved. And most of them wanted the case to be resolved via a plea. Some of them wanted him not to be prosecuted at all. Most of them did not want to have to come to court and testify. They were very worried about their privacy rights.7!® During her OPR interview, Villafafia similarly described the victims’ general reluctance to In his written response to OPR, Lourie stated that although he did not specifically recall the issues Villafafia set forth in her declaration, he believed they would have been important to the USAO in 2007. Lourie also told OPR that he generally recalled concerns within the USAO about the charges and a potential trial: [M]y vague recollection is that I and others had concerns that there was a substantial chance we would not prevail at both trial and on appeal after a conviction, resulting in no jail time, no criminal 215 Doe v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla.), Declaration of A. Marie Villafafia in Support of Government’s Response and Opposition to Petitioners’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment at 8-9 (June 2, 2017). 216 These concerns are also reflected in a 2017 declaration filed by the FBI case agent in the CVRA litigation, in which she stated, “During interviews conducted from 2006 to 2008, no victims expressed a strong opinion that Epstein be prosecuted.” She further described the concerns of some of the victims: Throughout the investigation, we interviewed many [of Epstein’s] victims... . A majority of the victims expressed concern about the possible disclosure of their identities to the public. A number of the victims raised concerns about having to testify and/or their parents finding out about their involvement with Mr. Epstein. Additionally, for some victims, learning of the Epstein investigation and possible exposure of their identities caused them emotional distress. Overall, many of the victims were troubled about the existence of the investigation. They displayed feelings of embarrassment and humiliation and were reluctant to talk to investigators. Some victims who were identified through the investigation refused even to speak to us. Our concerns about the victims’ well-being and getting to the truth were always at the forefront of our handling of the investigation. In addition, during the CVRA litigation, an attorney representing several victims filed a pleading to protect the anonymity of his clients by preventing disclosure of their identities to the CVRA petitioners. See Response to Court Order of July 6, 2015 and United States’ Notice of Partial Compliance (July 24, 2015). It is noteworthy that in 2020, when OPR attempted to contact victims, through their counsel, for interviews or responses to written questions regarding contacts with the USAO, OPR was informed that most of the victims were still deeply concerned about remaining anonymous. One victim described to OPR how she became distraught when, during the USAO’s investigation, the FBI left a business card at her parents’ home and, as a result, her parents learned that she was a victim of Epstein. At the time, the victim was a teenager; was “nervous, scared, and ashamed”; and did not want her parents to know about the case. 145 DOJ-OGR-00023183