DOJ-OGR-00023299.tif

require victim approval of the prosecutors’ plans, but it allows victims the opportunity to express their views and to be heard before a final decision is made. The lack of consultation in this case denied the victims that opportunity.*° Wf. LETTERS SENT TO VICTIMS BY THE FBI WERE NOT FALSE STATEMENTS BUT RISKED MISLEADING VICTIMS ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION After the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, Villafafia and the FBI separately communicated with numerous victims and victims’ attorneys, both in person and through letters. Apart from three victims who likely were informed in October or November 2007 about a resolution ending the federal investigation, victims were not informed about the NPA or even more generally that the USAO had agreed to end its federal criminal investigation of Epstein if he pled guilty to state charges until after Epstein entered his guilty plea in June 2008. Despite the government’s agreement on September 24, 2007, to end its federal investigation upon Epstein’s compliance with the terms of the NPA, the FBI sent to victims in October 2007, January 2008, and May 2008, letters stating that the case was “currently under investigation.” In its February 21, 2019 opinion in the CVRA case, the district court found those letters “misl[ed] the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility” and that “[i]t was a material omission for the Government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute.”4? In the discussions throughout this section, OPR examines the government’s course of conduct with victims after the NPA was signed. As set forth in the previous subsection, OPR did not find evidence supporting a finding that Acosta, Sloman, or Villafafia acted with the intent to silence victims. Nonetheless, after examining the full scope and context of the government’s interactions with victims, OPR concludes that the government’s inconsistent messages concerning the federal investigation led to victims feeling confused and ill-treated by the government. In this section, OPR examines and discusses letters sent to victims by the FBI that were the subject of the district court’s findings. OPR found no evidence that Acosta, Sloman, or Villafafia was aware of the content of the letters until the USAO received them from the FBI for production for the CVRA litigation. OPR determined that the January 10, 2008 and May 30, 2008 letters that the district court determined to be misleading, as well as the October 12, 2007 letter OPR located during its investigation, were “standard form letter[s]” sent by the FBI’s Victim Specialist. As noted previously in this Report, after the NPA was signed, Villafafia and the FBI agents continued to conduct their investigation in anticipation that Epstein would breach the NPA; absent such a 408 Villafafia told OPR that she recalled speaking to several victims along with FBI agents before the NPA was signed and “ask[ing] them how they wanted the case to be resolved.” FBI interview reports indicate that Villafafia was present with FBI agents for some of the interviews occurring well in advance of the NPA negotiations. See 2005 Guidelines, Art. IV, § B.2.c (1) (consultations may be limited to gathering information from victims and conveying only nonsensitive data and public information). However, Villafafia did not meet with all of the victims identified in the federal investigation, including the CVRA litigation petitioners, and the government conceded during the CVRA litigation that it entered into the NPA without conferring with the petitioners. Doe, 359 F. Supp. 3d at 1218. 409 Doe, 359 F. Supp. 3d at 1219, 1221. 261 DOJ-OGR- 00023299