DOJ-OGR-00023237.tif

questions,” she wanted to “make sure that they . . . feel like they can trust me.” Villafafia directed the FBI case agents to hand deliver the letters “as they were conducting interviews.” Villafafia told OPR that the USAO had “no standardized way to do any victim notifications prior to” the filing of federal charges, and therefore Villafafia did not use a template or VNS-generated letter for content, but instead used a letter she “had created and crafted [herself] for another case.”?”’ The letters contained contact information for Villafafia, the FBI case agent, and the Department’s Office for Victims of Crime in Washington, D.C., and itemized the CVRA rights. The USAO letters described the case as “under investigation” and stated that the victim would be notified “[i]f anyone is charged in connection with the investigation.” The letters stated that, in addition to their rights under the CVRA, victims were entitled to counseling, medical services, and potential restitution from the perpetrator, and that, upon request, the government would provide a list of counseling and medical services.*’* Lastly, the letters advised that investigators for the defense might contact the victims and those who felt threatened or harassed should contact Villafafia or the FBI case agent. Although the USAO letters did not contain any language limiting CVRA rights to the post- arrest or indictment stage, Villafafia told OPR that she did not intend for the letters to activate the USAO’s CVRA obligations, which she believed attached only after the filing of a criminal charge. Villafafia told OPR that she did not think that victims potentially receiving both an FBI letter and a USAO letter would be confused about their CVRA rights because the USAO letter “was coming with an introduction from the agents [who were hand delivering them].” Later, in the course of the CVRA litigation, Villafafia stated that she and the investigative team “adopted an approach of providing more notice and assistance to potential victims than the CVRA may have required, even before the circumstances of those individuals had been fully investigated and before any charging decisions had been made.”?” Villafafia informed Lourie and Sloman about the letters, but the letters were not reviewed by any of Villafafia’s supervisors, who considered such correspondence to be a non-management task. Acosta told OPR, “I’ve had no other case where I’m even aware of victims being notified, because I assume it all operates without it rising to management level.” Similarly, Menchel told OPR, 277 Villafafia told OPR that she thought that “at one point,” she showed the letter to the USAO’s Victim Witness Specialist who “said it was fine.” The USAO’s Victim Witness Specialist told OPR that because the USAO did not file a charging document in the Epstein matter, the USAO did not obtain VNS information from the FBI and did not assume responsibility for victim contact. The USAO’s Victim Witness Specialist had no contact with Epstein’s victims, and OPR’s examination of VNS data revealed no USAO case number linked to the FBI’s VNS data concerning the Epstein investigation. OPR did locate some victim contact information in the VNS relating to the USAO’s case number associated with the Epstein-related CVRA litigation filed in July 2008. 278 Through its administration of the Crime Victims Fund, the Department’s Office for Victims of Crime supports programs and services to help victims of crime. 279 Villafafia informed OPR that, as the USAO Project Safe Childhood Coordinator [focusing on prosecutions of individuals who exploit children through the internet], she “treated the [Guidelines] as a floor and tried to provide a higher standard of contact.” 199 DOJ-OGR- 00023237