DOJ-OGR-00004599.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 302 of 349 the federal investigation I was cooperating in. If I had been told of a[n NPA], I would have objected.” Wild further stated in her declaration that, “Based on what the FBI had been telling me, I thought they were still investigating my case.” Neither the CEOS Trial Attorney nor the FBI case agent recalled the specifics of the victim interviews. The FBI reports memorializing each interview primarily addressed the facts elicited from the victim regarding Epstein’s abuse and did not describe any discussion about the status of the case or the victim’s view about the prosecution of Epstein.*° When asked whether she was concerned that failing to tell victims about the NPA when she was interviewing them would mislead victims, as previously noted, Villafafia told OPR that she believed she and the agents were conducting an investigation because they continued “interviewing witnesses” and “doing all these things” to file charges and prepare for a federal trial. As Villafafia stated, “So to me, saying to a victim the case is now back under investigation is perfectly accurate.” Villafafia was also aware that some victims were represented by counsel in connection with civil lawsuits against Epstein, but did not proactively inform the victims’ attorneys about the NPA. In a 2017 affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation, victims’ attorney Bradley Edwards alleged that during telephone calls with Villafafia, he “asked very specific questions about what stage the investigation was in,” and Villafafia replied that she could not answer his questions because the matter “was an on-going active investigation.” Edwards stated that Villafafia gave him “the impression that the Federal investigation was on-going, very expansive, and continuously growing, both in the number of identified victims and complexity.” Edwards also stated, “A fair characterization of each call was that I provided information and asked questions and Villafafia listened and expressed that she was unable to say much or answer the questions I was asking.” In her written response to OPR, Villafafia stated that she “listened more than [she] spoke” during her interactions with Edwards and that due to the “uncertainty of the situation” and the possibility of a trial, she “did not feel comfortable sharing any information about the case.” Villafafia also told OPR that because of “all of these concerns and instructions that I had been given by Alex [Acosta] and Jeff [Sloman] not to disclose things further and not to have any involvement in victim notification,” she felt “prohibited” from providing additional information to Edwards. Sloman told OPR that although neither the NPA terms nor the CVRA prevented the USAO from exercising its discretion to notify the victims, “[I]t was [of] concern that this was going to break down and .. . result in us prosecuting Epstein and that the victims were going to be witnesses and if we provided a victim notification indicating, hey, you’re going to get $150,000, that’s .. . going to be instant impeachment for the defense.”**4 Acosta told OPR that, because Epstein did ‘8 As noted above, the FBI agent’s notes for one victim’s interview reported that she wanted another victim to be prosecuted. 434 When asked why the USAO did not simply notify the victims of the change of plea hearing, Sloman responded that he “was more focused on the restitution provisions. I didn’t get the sense that the victims were overly interested in showing up . . . at the change of plea.” 275 DOJ-OGR-00004599