EPSTEIN
page 5 / 307 . OCR, unverified
victims a reasonable right to confer with the government about the NPA before the agreement was
signed and that the government affirmatively misled victims about the status of the federal
investigation.
During the course of its investigation, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of thousands
of records from the USAO, the FBI, and other Department components, including the Office of
the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Division, and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.
The records included emails, letters, memoranda, and investigative materials. OPR also collected
and reviewed materials relating to the state investigation and prosecution of Epstein. OPR also
examined extensive publicly available information, including depositions, pleadings, orders, and
other court records, and reviewed media reports and interviews, articles, podcasts, and books
relating to the Epstein case.
In addition to this extensive documentary review, OPR conducted more than 60 interviews
of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their supervisors, and FBI administrative personnel;
current and former USAO staff and attorneys; current and former Department attorneys and senior
managers, including a former Deputy Attorney General and a former Assistant Attorney General
for the Criminal Division; and the former State Attorney and former Assistant State Attorney in
charge of the state investigation of Epstein. OPR also interviewed several victims and attorneys
representing victims, and reviewed written submissions from victims, concerning victim contacts
with the USAO and the FBI.
OPR identified former U.S. Attorney Acosta, three former USAO supervisors, and the
AUSA as subjects of its investigation based on preliminary information indicating that each of
them was involved in the decision to resolve the case through the NPA or in the negotiations
leading to the agreement. OPR deems a current or former Department attorney to be a subject of
its investigation when the individual’s conduct is within the scope of OPR’s review and may result
in a finding of professional misconduct. OPR reviewed prior public statements made by Acosta
and another subject. All five subjects cooperated fully with OPR’s investigation. OPR requested
that all of the subjects provide written responses detailing their involvement in the federal
investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and decisions relating to victim
notification and consultation. OPR received and reviewed written responses from all of the
subjects, and subsequently conducted extensive interviews of each subject under oath and before
a court reporter. Each subject was represented by counsel and had access to relevant
contemporaneous documents before the subject’s OPR interview. The subjects reviewed and
provided comments on their respective interview transcripts and on OPR’s draft report. OPR
The federal government was closed from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019. After initiating its
investigation, OPR also subsequently received other letters from U.S. Senators and Representatives inquiring into the
status of the OPR investigation.
vii
carefully considered the comments and made changes, or noted comments, as OPR deemed
appropriate; OPR did not, however, alter its findings and conclusions.
Finally, OPR reviewed relevant case law, statutes, regulations, Department policy, and
attorney professional responsibility rules as necessary to resolve the issues presented in this case
and to determine whether the subjects committed professional misconduct.
As part of its investigation, OPR examined the interactions between state officials and the
federal investigators and prosecutors, but because OPR does not have jurisdiction over state
officials, OPR did not investigate, or reach conclusions about, their conduct regarding the state
investigation.7 Because OPR’s mission is to ensure that Department attorneys adhere to the
standards of professional conduct, OPR’s investigation focused on the actions of the subject
attorneys rather than on determining the full scope of Epstein’s and his assistants’ criminal
behavior. Accordingly, OPR considered the evidence and information regarding Epstein’s and his
assistants’ conduct as it was known to the subjects at the time they performed their duties as
Department attorneys. Additional evidence and information that came to light after June 30, 2008,
when Epstein entered his guilty plea under the NPA, did not affect the subjects’ actions prior to
that date, and OPR did not evaluate the subjects’ conduct on the basis of that subsequent
information.
OPR’s investigation occurred approximately 12 years after most of the significant events
relating to the USAO’s investigation of Epstein, the NPA, and Epstein’s guilty plea. As a result,
many of the subjects and witnesses were unable to recall the details of events or their own or