DOJ-OGR-00023297.tif

did not find evidence showing that the subjects intended to silence victims or to prevent them from having input into the USAO’s intent to resolve the federal investigation. Although the contemporaneous records provide some information about victim notification decisions made after the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, the records contain little about the subjects’ views regarding consultation with victims before the NPA was signed. In a September 6, 2007 email primarily addressing other topics, as the plea negotiations were beginning in earnest and almost three weeks before the NPA was signed, Villafafia raised the topic of victim consultation with Sloman: “The agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which as [CEOS Chief Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, is required under the law. . . . [A]nd the [PBPD] Chief wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal.’ Sloman forwarded the email to Acosta with a note stating, “fyi.” Villafafia recalled that after she sent the email, Sloman told her by telephone, “[Y]ou can’t do that now.”*°° Villafafia also told OPR that shortly before the NPA was signed, Sloman told her, “[W]e’ve been advised that . . . pre- charge resolutions do not require victim notification.” Villafafia also recalled a discussion with Acosta, Menchel, and Sloman, during which she stated that she would need to get victims’ input on the terms being proposed to the defense, and she was told, “Plea negotiations are confidential. You can’t disclose them.’4°° None of the other subjects recalled a specific discussion before the NPA was signed about the USAO’s CVRA obligations. Menchel told OPR he believed the USAO was not required to consult with victims during the preliminary “general discussion” phase of settlement negotiations; moreover, he left the USAO before the terms of the NPA were fully developed. Sloman told OPR that he “did not think that we had to consult with victims prior to entering into the NPA” and “we did not have to seek approval from victims to resolve a case.” Sloman believed the USAO was obligated only to notify victims about resolution of “the cases that we handled, filed cases.” Sloman recalled that because the USAO envisioned a state court resolution of the matter, he did not “think that that was a concern of ours at the time to consult with [the victims] prior to entering into .. . the NPA.” Lourie told OPR that he did not recall any discussions about informing the victims about the terms of the NPA or any instructions to Villafafia that she not discuss the NPA with the victims. He stated that everything the USAO did was “to try and get the best result as possible for the victims. . . . [O]nce you step back and look at the whole forest . .., you will see that... . [I]f you look at each tree and say, well, you didn’t do this right for the victim, you didn’t tell the victim this and that, you’re missing the big picture.” 404 As noted, the Department’s position at the time was that the CVRA did not require consultation with victims because no criminal charges had been filed. In addition, Villafafia’s reference to victim “approval” was inaccurate because the CVRA, even when applicable, requires only “consultation” with victims about prosecutorial decisions. 405 Villafafia did not recall Sloman explaining the reason for the decision. 406 Villafafia also told OPR that she recalled Menchel raising a concern that “telling them about the negotiations could cause victims to exaggerate their stories because of their desire to obtain damages from Epstein.” Villafafia was uncertain of the date of the conversation, but Menchel’s presence requires it to have occurred before August 3, 2007. 259 DOJ-OGR- 00023297